THE  LIFE  OF  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 


THE  LIFE  OF 

LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

BY 

HORACE  WHITE 


BOSTON   AND    NEW  YORK 
HOUGHTON  MIFFLIN   COMPANY 

fitoerside  p>rej 
1913 


COPYRIGHT,    1913,    BY   HORACE   WHITE 
ALL   RIGHTS    RESERVED 

Published  October  IQIJ 


PREFACE 

A  FEW  years  since,  the  widow  of  Lyman  Trumbull 
requested  me  to  write  a  biography  of  her  husband,  who 
was  United  States  Senator  from  Illinois  during  the  three 
senatorial  terms  1855-1873,  or  to  recommend  some  suit 
able  person  for  the  task.  It  had  been  a  cause  of  surprise 
and  regret  to  me  that  the  name  of  Trumbull  had  not  yet 
found  a  place  in  the  swelling  flood  of  biographical  litera 
ture  that  embraces  the  Civil  War  period.  Everybody, 
North  or  South,  who  stood  on  the  same  elevation  with 
him,  everybody  who  exercised  influence  and  filled  the 
public  eye  in  equal  measure  with  him,  had  found  his  niche 
in  the  libraries  of  the  nation,  and  such  place  in  the  hearts 
of  the  people  as  his  merits  warranted.  Trumbull  alone 
had  been  neglected.  I  reflected  upon  the  matter  and 
came  to  the  conclusion  that,  although  better  writers  than 
myself  could  be  found  for  this  kind  of  work,  no  one  was 
likely  to  be  found  who  had  been  more  intimate  with  him 
during  his  whole  senatorial  career,  or  who  had  warmer 
sympathy  for  his  aims  or  higher  admiration  for  his  abili 
ties  and  character.  I  reflected  also  that  very  soon  there 
would  be  no  person  living  possessing  these  special  qualifi 
cations.  Accordingly  I  decided  to  undertake  the  work. 

Mrs.  Trumbull  placed  in  my  hands  several  thousand 
letters  received  by  Trumbull,  and  a  few  written  by  him, 
during  his  public  career.  All  these  have  been  examined  by 
me,  and  they  are  now  in  the  Library  of  Congress.  He  was 
not  in  the  habit  of  keeping  copies  of  letters  written  by 
himself  unless  he  deemed  them  important,  and  such  copies 
were  generally  written  out  by  his  own  hand,  not  taken  in 


71298 


vi  PREFACE 

a  copying-press.  Other  letters  written  by  him  have  been 
sought  with  varying  success  in  the  hands  of  his  corre 
spondents,  or  their  heirs,  in  various  parts  of  the  country, 
but  nothing  has  been  found  in  this  way  that  can  be 
considered  of  much  importance. 

During  the  Reconstruction  era  I  had  sustained  the 
policy  of  Congress  in  opposition  to  that  of  Andrew 
Johnson,  but  had  revolted  at  the  carpetbaggery  and  mis- 
government  which  had  ensued,  and  had  abhorred  the 
"Ku-Klux"  bills  and  "Force"  bills  which  the  Union 
party  for  a  long  time  continued  to  enact  or  threaten.  I 
was  not  quite  prepared  to  find,  however,  upon  going  over 
the  whole  ground  again,  that  I  had  been  wrong  from  the 
beginning,  and  that  Andrew  Johnson's  policy,  which  was 
Lincoln's  policy,  was  the  true  one,  and  ought  never  to 
have  been  departed  from.  This  is  the  conclusion  to 
which  I  have  come,  after  much  study,  in  the  evening  of 
a  long  life.  This  does  not  mean  that  all  of  the  doings  and 
sayings  of  President  Johnson  were  wise  and  good,  but 
that  I  believe  him  to  have  been  an  honest  man,  a  true 
patriot,  and  a  worthy  successor  of  Lincoln  whose  Recon 
struction  policy  he  followed.  Lincoln  himself  could  not 
have  carried  that  policy  into  effect  without  a  fight,  and 
many  persons  familiar  with  the  temper  of  the  time  think 
that  even  he  would  have  failed.  All  that  we  can  now 
affirm  is  that  he  was  armed  with  the  prestige  of  vic 
tory  and  the  confidence  of  the  North,  and  hence  would 
have  been  better  prepared  than  Johnson  was  for  meeting 
the  difficulties  that  sprang  up  at  the  end  of  the  war.  It 
must  be  admitted,  however,  that  Johnson  honestly  aimed 
to  carry  out  that  policy,  both  because  it  was  Lincoln's 
and  because  he  himself,  after  careful  consideration, 
esteemed  it  sound. 

I  acknowledge  my  indebtedness  to  the  Diary  of  Gideon 


PREFACE  vii 

Welles,  which  I  regard  as  the  most  important  contribu 
tion  to  the  history  of  the  period  of  which  it  treats  that  has 
yet  been  given  to  the  public.  The  history  of  Mr.  James 
Ford  Rhodes  I  have  found  to  be  an  invaluable  guide,  as 
to  both  facts  and  judgments  of  men  and  things.  I  am 
indebted  to  Professor  William  A.  Dunning,  of  Columbia 
University,  for  valuable  suggestions,  criticism,  and  en 
couragement,  as  well  as  for  the  assistance  derived  from 
his  admired  writings  on  Reconstruction.  Miss  Katherine 
Mayo  has  lightened  my  labors  greatly  by  her  intelligent 
and  indefatigable  search  of  old  letters  and  newspaper 
files  and  by  interviews  with  persons  still  living.  My 
gratitude  is  due  also  to  the  late  William  H.  Lambert,  of 
Philadelphia,  for  giving  me  access  to  his  collection  of 
manuscript  correspondence  that  passed  between  Lincoln 
and  Trumbull  prior  to  the  inauguration  of  the  former  as 
President;  also  to  Dr.  William  Jayne,  of  Springfield, 
Illinois,  to  Hon.  J.  H.  Roberts,  of  Chicago,  to  the  wife  of 
Walter  Trumbull  (now  Mrs.  L.  C.  Pardee,  of  Chicago), 
and  to  Mrs.  Mary  Ingraham  Trumbull,  of  Saybrook 
Point,  Connecticut. 

H.  W. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  I 
ANCESTRY  AND  EARLY  LIFE 

The  Trumbulls  from  Newcastle-on-Tyne,  England  —  Most  illustrious 
family  in  Colony  of  Connecticut  —  Lyman  Trumbull  born  and  edu 
cated  at  Colchester  —  Begins  his  career  as  school-teacher  in  Georgia 
in  1833  —  Studies  law  there  in  office  of  Hiram  Warner  —  In  1837  makes 
a  journey  on  horseback  to  Shawneetown,  Illinois  —  Begins  practice  of 
law  in  office  of  Governor  Reynolds  at  Belleville  —  "  Riding  on  the  cir 
cuit"  in  the  early  days  —  In  a  letter  to  his  father  describes  the  killing 
of  Rev.  Elijah  P.  Lovejoy  at  Alton  —  Elected  to  the  legislature  from  St. 
Clair  County  in  1840  —  Appointed  secretary  of  state  in  1841  by  Gover 
nor  Carlin  —  Removed  from  office  in  1843  by  Governor  Ford  —  Pol 
itical  disturbance  in  consequence  —  Belleville  in  1842  —  Marriage  of 
Trumbull  and  Miss  Julia  Jayne  —  Their  wedding  journey  —  Political 
campaign  of  1848  —  Trumbull  fails  of  nomination  for  governor  —  Is 
elected  judge  of  the  supreme  court  in  1848  —  Removes  his  residence  to 
Alton  —  Reflected  as  judge  in  1852,  but  resigns  in  the  following  year  .  1 

CHAPTER  II 
SLAVERY  IN  ILLINOIS 

French  adventurers  from  Canada  the  first  whites  in  Illinois  —  Followed 
by  colonists  from  Louisiana  —  Slaves  sent  from  Santo  Domingo  by 
John  Law's  Company  of  the  Indies  —  Thomas  Jefferson  takes  steps 
to  exclude  slavery  from  the  Northwest  Territory  —  The  Anti-Slavery 
Ordinance  of  1787  —  The  territorial  legislature  authorizes  the  holding 
of  "indentured  servants"  for  a  limited  time  —  Attempts  to  repeal 
the  Ordinance  defeated  in  Congress  by  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke  — 
State  constitution  in  1818  prohibits  slavery  —  the  pro-slavery  men 
attempt  to  change  the  constitution  —  Bitter  contest  in  1824  results 
in  their  defeat  —  Slavery  continues,  nevertheless,  under  judicial  deci 
sions  —  Trumbull  wages  war  against  it  in  the  courts  —  His  final  victory 
in  the  Jarrot  case,  in  1845 23 

CHAPTER  HI 

FIRST  ELECTION  AS  SENATOR 

Senator  Douglas  and  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  —  Disruption 
of  political  parties  —  Trumbull  announces  himself  a  candidate  for 


x  CONTENTS 

Congress  in  opposition  to  the  Nebraska  Bill  —  Is  elected  in  the  Eighth 
Illinois  District  —  Abraham  Lincoln  takes  the  stump  against  Douglas 
—  Their  joint  debate  at  Springfield  in  October,  1854  —  An  Anti- 
Nebraska  legislature  elected  —  Lincoln  a  candidate  for  Senator  in 
place  of  General  Shields  —  Five  Anti-Nebraska  Bill  members  vote  for 
Trumbull  —  Supporters  of  Shields  transfer  their  votes  to  Governor 
Matteson  —  Lincoln  transfers  his  votes  to  Trumbull,  who  is  elected  by 
a  majority  of  one 32 

CHAPTER  IV 

THE  KANSAS  WAR 

Trumbull  takes  his  seat  in  the  Senate  —  A  protest  is  presented  declar 
ing  him  not  eligible  —  It  is  overruled  after  debate  —  Disturbances  in 
Kansas  consequent  upon  the  passage  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  —  Trumbull 
makes  a  speech  criticizing  Douglas's  report  thereon  —  Debate  between 
the  two  Senators  attracts  wide  attention  —  Speeches  of  Seward,  Sum- 
ner,  Collamer,  and  others  —  Trumbull's  first  appearance  in  debate  is 
warmly  welcomed  by  the  opponents  of  the  Nebraska  Bill  .  .  48 

CHAPTER  V 
THE  LECOMPTON  FIGHT 

The  national  contest  of  1856  results  in  the  election  of  James  Buchanan  as 
President  —  The  Republicans  of  Illinois  elect  their  state  ticket  —  The 
Kansas  war  continues  —  Buchanan  appoints  Robert  J.Walker  governor 
of  the  territory  —  The  Pro-Slavery  party  hold  a  convention  at  the  town 
of  Lecompton  to  form  a  state  constitution  —  The  Free  State  men  decide 
not  to  participate,  but  to  vote  against  the  constitution  when  submitted 
to  the  people  —  The  convention  decides  not  to  submit  the  constitution 
to  popular  vote  —  President  Buchanan  agrees  to  this  plan  —  Gover 
nor  Walker  thereupon  resigns  his  office  and  Senator  Douglas  opposes 
the  admission  of  Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution  —  Both 
Trumbull  and  Douglas  speak  against  the  Lecompton  measure  and 
Congress  rejects  it  —  Douglas  contemplates  joining  the  Republicans.  69 

CHAPTER  VI 
THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1858  AND  THE  JOHN  BROWN  RAID 

Popularity  of  Douglas  among  the  Eastern  Republicans  growing  out  of  the 
Lecompton  fight  —  Not  shared  by  those  of  Illinois  —  The  latter  choose 
Lincoln  as  their  candidate  for  Senator  —  Some  letters  from  Lincoln  to 
Trumbull  in  1858  —  The  campaign  of  1858  results  in  the  reelection  of 
Douglas,  but  the  popular  vote  shows  a  plurality  for  Lincoln  —  Doug 
las's  doctrine  of  "  Unfriendly  Legislation  "  in  the  territories  in  regard  to 
slavery  turns  the  South  against  him  —  The  John  Brown  raid  at  Har 
per's  Ferry  —  Trumbull's  speech  and  debate  thereon  in  the  Senate  .  86 


CONTENTS  xi 

CHAPTER  VII 
THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION 

The  National  Republican  Convention  at  Chicago  in  1860  —  How  Lincoln 
was  nominated  in  preference  to  Seward  —  the  Secession  movement 
after  the  election  —  Trumbull  makes  a  speech  at  Springfield  which 
includes  a  brief  statement  of  Republican  policy  written  by  Lincoln  — 
Correspondence  between  Lincoln  and  Trumbull  before  the  inauguration 
—  Trumbull  advises  his  friends  in  Chicago  not  to  make  concessions  to 
those  who  threaten  to  overthrow  the  Government  —  He  has  a  debate 
in  the  Senate  with  Jefferson  Davis  —  Makes  a  speech  at  the  night 
session,  March  2,  1861,  against  the  Crittenden  Compromise  —  The 
latter  defeated  in  the  Senate  by  Yeas,  19;  Nays,  20  —  Some  items  of 
Washington  society  news  from  Mrs.  Trumbull  —  Interview  between 
President  Buchanan  and  Judge  McLean  —  Text  of  Trumbull's  Speech 
against  the  Crittenden  Compromise ^  .  102 

CHAPTER  VIII 
CABINET-MAKING  —  THE  DEATH  OF  DOUGLAS 

Trumbull's  interview  with  William  Cullen  Bryant,  and  others,  who  oppose 
William  H.  Seward  as  a  member  of  Lincoln's  Cabinet  —  They  consider 
Seward's  coterie  in  New  York  corrupt  and  dangerous  —  Trumbull 
communicates  the  objections  to  Lincoln  —  Lincoln  thinks  that  the 
forces  which  backed  Seward  at  the  Chicago  Convention  must  not  be 
snubbed  —  He  has  already  offered  a  place  to  Seward  —  The  question 
of  Cameron  more  difficult  —  David  Davis's  bargain  with  friends  of 
Cameron  and  of  Caleb  Smith  —  Cameron  tries  to  procure  an  invitation 
to  Springfield,  but  Lincoln  refuses  —  Leonard  Swett  gives  invitation 
without  Lincoln's  authority  —  Cameron  visits  Springfield  and  secures 
promise  of  Cabinet  position  from  Lincoln  —  A.  K.  McClure  protests 
against  Cameron's  appointment  and  Lincoln  requests  Cameron  to 
decline  —  Cameron  does  not  decline  —  Trumbull  advises  Lincoln  not 
to  appoint  Cameron  —  Lincoln's  Illinois  friends  protest  against  Cam 
eron  —  Trumbull  urges  appointment  of  Judd  —  Seward  and  Weed 
support  Cameron,  who  is  finally  appointed  Secretary  of  War  —  Trum 
bull,  reflected  as  Senator,  becomes  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary  —  The  last  great  service  of  Senator  Douglas  to  his  country  — 
His  death  and  Trumbull's  tribute  to  his  memory  ....  139 

CHAPTER  IX 
FORT  SUMTER 

The  Senate  appoints  a  committee  to  ask  the  President  to  recall  the  appoint 
ment  of  Harvey  as  Minister  to  Portugal  —  He  had  notified  Governor 
Pickens  of  the  Government's  intention  to  relieve  Fort  Sumter  — 
Trumbull  a  member  of  the  committee  —  Seward  says  that  he  did  not 


xii  CONTENTS 

know  of  Harvey's  action  till  after  the  appointment  was  made  —  In 
fact,  Seward  gave  the  information  to  Harvey  intending  that  he  should 
send  it  to  Pickens  —  John  Hay's  Diary  says  that  Lincoln,  before  his  in 
auguration,  offered  to  evacuate  Fort  Sumter  —  Also  that  he  repeated 
the  offer  after  inauguration  —  This  confirms  a  narrative  of  John  Minor 
Botts  —  The  controversy  between  Botts  and  J.  B.  Baldwin  concerning 
the  latter's  interview  with  Lincoln  on  April  5,  1861  —  Reasons  for 
believing  that  Botts's  story  is  true  —  Remarkable  interview  between 
Douglas  and  Seward  as  to  Fort  Sumter  * 155 

CHAPTER  X 
BULL  RUN  — THE  CONFISCATION  ACT 

Trumbull  makes  an  excursion  with  Senator  Grimes  to  the  battle  of  Bull 
Run  —  Is  caught  by  the  retreating  Union  army  and  driven  back  to 
Washington  —  His  account  of  the  panic  and  stampede  says,  "  It  was  the 
most  shameful  rout  you  can  conceive  of"  —  Sends  a  telegram  to  Mrs. 
Trumbull,  but  the  authorities  suppress  it  —  Consternation  at  the 
Capital  —  General  Fremont's  doings  at  St.  Louis  —  His  military  order 
of  emancipation  —  Lincoln  considers  it  premature  and  revokes  it  — 
Correspondence  between  Trumbull  and  M.  Carey  Lea,  of  Philadelphia 
—  Cameron  follows  Fremont's  example  in  his  first  Annual  Report  — 
Sends  report  to  the  newspapers  without  the  President's  knowledge  — 
Lincoln  directs  him  to  recall  it  and  strike  out  the  part  relating  to  slav 
ery  —  General  David  Hunter  issues  an  order  freeing  all  slaves  in  South 
Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Florida  —  The  President  revokes  it  —  Trum 
bull  reports  a  bill  from  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  to  confiscate 
the  property  of  rebels  and  to  give  freedom  to  all  of  their  slaves  —  Colla- 
mer  opposes  confiscation  as  both  unconstitutional  and  impolitic  —  He 
offers  an  amendment  to  substitute  judicial  process  for  military  confis 
cation  —  Collamer's  views  prevail  —  The  President  objected,  however, 
to  the  forfeiture  of  real  estate  beyond  the  lifetime  of  the  owner  — 
This  was  the  first  bill  passed  by  Congress  dealing  a  heavy  blow  at 
slavery 165 

CHAPTER  XI 
THE  EXPULSION  OF  CAMERON 

Cameron  and  Alexander  Cummings  —  Two  million  dollars  placed  in  New 
York  subject  to  Cummings 's  draft  —  The  steamer  Catiline  chartered 
and  laden  by  Cummings  and  Thurlow  Weed  —  The  House  Com 
mittee  on  Government  Contracts  —  Cummings's  testimony  —  Con 
gressman  Dawes's  exposure  of  horse  contracts  —  An  equine  Gol 
gotha  around  Washington  City  —  The  House  censures  Cameron  — 
Lincoln  removes  him  and  appoints  Stanton  in  his  place  —  Cameron 
appointed  Minister  to  Russia  —  Trumbull  opposes  confirmation  — 
Cameron  is  confirmed,  six  Republican  Senators  voting  in  the  negative.  178 


CONTENTS  xiii 

CHAPTER  XII 

ARBITRARY  ARRESTS 

Lincoln's  first  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  —  Secretary  Seward 
and  John  Hay  give  verbal  instructions  thereunder  —  Senate  debate  on 
arbitrary  arrests  —  Wide  differences  of  opinion  as  to  legality  thereof  — 
Trumbull  calls  for  information  —  Debate  between  Trumbull,  Dixon, 
and  Wilson  —  Was  power  to  suspend  the  writ  lodged  in  the  executive 
or  in  the  legislative  department?  —  Chief  Justice  Taney  held  that  the 
writ  had  not  been  lawfully  suspended  anywhere  —  Trumbull  demands 
trial  by  jury,  without  delay,  of  civilians  arrested  in  loyal  states  — 
Before  Congress  takes  action  the  election  of  1862  results  in  victory  for 
Democrats  —  Republican  leaders  intimidated  —  Stanton  discharges 
all  civilian  prisoners  —  Congress  passes  TrumbuU's  bill  authorizing 
President  to  suspend  writ,  but  requiring  trial  in  civil  courts  and  dis 
charge  of  persons  not  indicted  —  Bill  to  indemnify  the  President  for 
previous  acts  passed  by  both  houses  —  Banishment  of  Vallandigham 
and  suppression  of  the  Chicago  Times  —  Trumbull  opposes  the  latter.  190 

CHAPTER  XIII 

INCIDENTS  OF  THE  YEARS  1863  AND    1864 

The  movement  in  the  Senate  for  the  retirement  of  Secretary  Seward  — 
Letters  from  Gustave  Koerner,  Alfred  Iverson,  and  Walter  B.  Scates 
—  The  appointment  of  M.  W.  Delahay  as  judge  of  the  U.S.  District 
Court  of  Kansas  —  His  subsequent  impeachment  and  resignation  — 
Letters  of  General  John  M.  Palmer,  Colonel  Fred  Hecker,  and  Jesse  K. 
Dubois  —  Trumbull  doubts  the  expediency  of  Lincoln's  second  nomina 
tion  —  He  thinks  that  there  is  a  lack  of  efficiency  in  the  prosecution  of 
the  war  —  This  opinion  shared  by  Henry  Wilson  and  by  Congressmen 
generally  in  the  beginning  of  1864  —  The  people,  however,  were  for 
Lincoln's  renomination  —  The  Cleveland  Convention,  and  nomination 
of  General  Fremont  —  Simultaneous  retirement  of  Fremont  and  Post 
master-General  Blair 210 

CHAPTER  XIV 
THE  THIRTEENTH  AMENDMENT  TO  THE  CONSTITUTION 

Scope  of  Lincoln's  Proclamation  of  Emancipation  —  Amendment  of  the 
Constitution  to  abolish  slavery  —  First  proposals  by  Wilson,  of  Iowa, 
and  Henderson,  of  Missouri  —  Trumbull  reports  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment  from  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  —  His  argument 
thereon  —  Speeches  of  Senators  Henderson  and  Reverdy  Johnson  — 
Amendment  passes  the  Senate,  but  fails  in  the  House  —  Second  at 
tempt  in  the  House  successful  by  a  trade  with  Democrats  —  Amend 
ment  ratified  —  Objections  raised  by  Southern  States  explained  away 
by  Seward  ....  .  222 


xiv  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XV 
RECONSTRUCTION 

Death  of  Lincoln  —  Conflict  of  opinions  concerning  the  status  of  the 
seceding  states  —  Lincoln's  proclamation  of  December,  1863  —  Re 
construction  of  Louisiana  in  pursuance  thereof  —  Trumbull  reports  a 
joint  resolution  admitting  that  state  —  Sumner  prevents  the  Senate 
from  voting  on  it  —  Lincoln's  last  speech  on  Reconstruction  —  His 
plan  indorsed  by  William  Lloyd  Garrison  —  Andrew  Johnson  as  Presi 
dent  adopts  it  —  Recognizes  Virginia,  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  and  Ar 
kansas  as  restored  to  the  Union  —  Issues  an  executive  order  appointing 
a  governor  of  North  Carolina  to  call  a  constitutional  convention  — 
Negroes  not  included  in  the  list  of  voters  —  Similar  orders  issued  for 
the  other  seceding  states  —  Wendell  Phillips  sounds  a  blast  against 
President  Johnson  —  Northern  newspapers  at  first  favorable  to  John 
son  —  Desperate  industrial  condition  of  the  South  ....  231 

CHAPTER  XVI 
ANDREW  JOHNSON'S  FIRST  MESSAGE 

Excellent  tone  and  temper  of  Johnson's  first  communication  to  Congress 
—  Written  by  George  Bancroft  —  Eulogy  of  the  New  York  Nation  — 
Johnson's  early  life  and  training  —  A  first-rate  stump-speaker  —  Sum 
ner  attacks  Johnson  for  "whitewashing"  the  ex-slaveholders  —  Acts  of 
Southern  legislatures  passed  to  keep  the  negroes  in  order  —  Senator 
Wilson  moves  that  all  such  acts  establishing  inequality  of  civil  rights  be 
declared  invalid  —  Trumbull  argues  for  postponement  of  such  legisla 
tion  until  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  is  ratified  —  Debate  between 
Trumbull  and  Saulsbury  —  Reports  of  General  Grant  and  General  Carl 
Schurz  on  the  condition  and  temper  of  the  Southern  people  —  Letter 
from  J.  L.  M.  Curry  on  the  same 244 

CHAPTER  XVH 
THE  FREEDMEN'S  BUREAU  AND   CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILLS 

Trumbull  introduces  two  bills  to  protect  the  freedmen  in  the  states  — 
Provisions  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill  —  Trumbull  contends  that 
the  Thirteenth  Amendment  authorized  Congress  to  abolish  the  inci 
dents  and  disabilities  of  slavery  —  The  Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill  passed 
by  Congress  and  vetoed  by  the  President  —  The  Senate  fails  to  pass  it 
over  the  veto  —  Struggle  in  the  Senate  to  obtain  a  two-thirds  majority 
—  Senator  Stockton  (Democrat),  of  New  Jersey,  unseated  —  Trum- 
bull's  Civil  Rights  Bill  taken  up  —  It  does  not  deal  with  the  right  of 
suffrage  —  Debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  constitutional  question  —  Bill 
passes  Senate  —  Is  opposed  in  the  House  by  Bingham,  of  Ohio  —  Is 
vetoed  by  the  President  —  Exciting  scene  in  Senate  when  the  bill  is 


CONTENTS  xv 

passed  over  the  veto  —  Trumbull  takes  the  lead  in  the  campaign  of  1866 
and  is  reflected  to  the  Senate  —  The  Civil  Rights  Act  in  the  courts  — 
An  echo  from  the  State  of  Georgia  .......  257 

CHAPTER  XVDI 
THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT 

The  Joint  Committee  on  Reconstruction  reports  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment  of  the  Constitution  —  It  holds  that  the  seceding  states  cannot  be 
restored  to  their  former  places  in  the  Union  by  the  executive  alone  — 
Tennessee  admitted  to  the  Union  by  Congress  —  The  Arm-in- Arm 
Convention  at  Philadelphia  —  President  Johnson's  unfortunate  speech 
following  that  event  —  The  Southern  States  refuse  to  ratify  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment  —  This  refusal  gives  increased  power  to  the  radicals 
in  the  North  .  .  . .281 

CHAPTER  XIX 
CROSSING  THE  RUBICON 

Decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  Milligan  case  —  It  declares  all  trials 
of  civilians  by  military  commissions  unlawful  —  It  implies  that  Andrew 
Johnson's  policy  was  preferable  to  that  of  Congress  —  All  the  mem 
bers  of  the  Cabinet  support  the  President's  policy  —  Stanton,  however, 
secretly  confers  with  the  radicals  to  undermine  the  President  —  Sum- 
ner  and  Stevens  become  the  leaders  in  Congress  and  pass  bills  annulling 
state  governments  in  the  South  —  The  Conservatives  follow  reluc 
tantly,  believing  that  the  negroes  cannot  be  protected  unless  they  have 
the  right  to  vote  —  Remarkable  series  of  Reconstruction  Acts  passed 
in  1867  and  1868  —  The  case  of  Georgia  —  Trumbull  overthrows  Gov 
ernor  Bullock  and  his  senatorial  supporters 288 

CHAPTER  XX 
IMPEACHMENT 

The  Tenure-of-Office  Bill  passed  to  curtail  the  President's  power  to  remove 
officeholders  —  It  does  not  apply  to  members  of  the  Cabinet  —  The 
President  vetoes  it  —  The  veto  message  written  by  Seward  and  Stanton 
in  conjunction  —  Bill  repassed  over  veto  —  First  mutterings  about 
impeachment  —  The  Judiciary  Committee  reports  in  favor  of  it  — 
The  House  rejects  the  report  —  The  President  requests  Stanton's  resig 
nation  —  Stanton  refuses  to  resign  —  The  President  removes  him  and 
appoints  Grant  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim  —  Stanton  retires  —  The 
Senate  disapproves  of  the  removal  of  Stanton  —  Grant  retires  and 
Stanton  resumes  office — The  President  accuses  Grant  of  bad  faith,  and 
appoints  Lorenzo  Thomas  Secretary  of  War  —  The  House  votes  to  im 
peach  the  President  and  appoints  managers  therefor  —  The  trial  begins 
March  5,  1868  —  The  President  is  acquitted  by  vote  of  35  to  19,  not 


xvi  CONTENTS 

two  thirds  —  Seven  Republican  Senators  including  Trumbull  vote 
"Not  Guilty"  —  Newspaper  comments  sustaining  the  "Seven  Trai 
tors" —  Trumbull's  written  opinion  filed  with  the  record  —  Conse 
quences  of  the  impeachment  trial  —  Death  of  Fessenden  —  Death 
of  Mrs.  Lyman  Trumbull  .  .  .  ...  .  .  .  301 

CHAPTER  XXI 

THE  McCARDLE  CASE  — GRANT'S  CABINET  — 
THE  FIFTEENTH  AMENDMENT 

W.  H.  McCardle,  of  Mississippi,  arrested  by  General  Ord  for  seditious  pub 
lications  —  Takes  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  —  General  Grant, 
as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  retains  Trumbull  to  defend  the  military 
authorities  —  Congress  passes  a  law  to  deprive  the  Supreme  Court  of 
jurisdiction  —  Trumbull  votes  for  it  —  The  Court  rules  that  its  juris 
diction  has  been  withdrawn  by  Congress  —  Secretary  Stanton  fixes 
Trumbull's  compensation  for  professional  services  at  $10,000  —  Sena 
tor  Chandler  contends  that  the  payment  is  contrary  to  law  —  Trumbull 
shows  that  both  law  and  precedent  are  on  his  side  —  The  facts  in  the 
case  —  President  Grant's  mishaps  in  choosing  his  Cabinet  —  Wash- 
burne  for  the  State  Department,  Stewart  for  the  Treasury,  and  Borie 
for  the  Navy  —  They  are  succeeded  by  Fish,  Boutwell,  and  Robeson  — 
General  John  A.  Rawlins  selected  by  himself  for  Secretary  of  War  with 
Grant's  approval  —  General  Jacob  Cox  and  Rockwood  Hoar,  two  men 
of  the  highest  type,  appointed  but  soon  resign  —  Adoption  of  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution 327 

CHAPTER  XXH 
CAUSES  OF  DISCONTENT 

Senator  Grimes's  estimate  of  the  Republican  party  in  1870  —  President 
Grant's  methods  of  carrying  on  the  Government  —  His  attempt  to 
annex  Santo  Domingo  —  Senate  rejects  the  treaty  of  annexation  — 
The  President  comes  in  conflict  with  Charles  Sumner,  who  is  displaced 
as  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  —  Trum 
bull  sustains  Sumner  —  Motley,  Minister  to  Great  Britain,  is  removed 
from  ofBce  and  Trumbull  is  asked  to  take  his  place  —  He  declines  the 
offer  —  First  movement  for  civil  service  reform  —  Trumbull  makes  a 
speech  at  Chicago  advocating  it  —  Secretary  Cox  and  Attorney-Gen 
eral  Hoar  cease  to  be  members  of  Grant's  Cabinet  .  .  .  .341 

CHAPTER  XXIH 
THE  LIBERAL  REPUBLICANS 

The  Liberal  Republican  movement  begins  in  Missouri  —  Its  leaders  — 
Enfranchisement  of  the  ex-Confederates,  civil  service  reform,  and  reve- 


CONTENTS  xvii 

nue  reform,  the  issues  —  Meeting  of  revenue  reformers  at  New  York, 
November  22,  1871  —  James  G.  Elaine,  Speaker  of  the  House,  offers 
them  a  majority  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  —  The  Missouri 
movement  alarms  the  Republican  leaders  —  They  pass  the  Ku-Klux 
Bill  for  the  employment  of  military  force  in  the  South  —  Trumbull 
and  Schurz  oppose  the  Ku-Klux  bill  —  Trumbull  pronounces  it  an 
unconstitutional  measure  —  Schurz  advocates  the  removal  of  all  polit- 
cal  disabilities  —  Congress  passes  an  act  of  universal  amnesty  after 
the  meeting  of  the  Liberal  Republican  Convention  .  .  .  .351 

CHAPTER  XXIV 
GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION 

General  Grant's  habits  and  training  were  not  well  adapted  to  civil  and 
political  duties  —  He  was  nominated  for  President  on  account  of  his 
military  success  —  Rottenness  in  the  New  York  Custom-House  — 
Trumbull  moves  a  general  investigation  of  the  waste  of  public  money  — 
The  Senate  decides  in  favor  of  a  committee  to  investigate  only  matters 
specifically  referred  to  it  —  The  Leet  and  Stocking  scandal  —  Colonel 
Leet  found  to  be  receiving  $50,000  per  year  from  the  "General  Order" 
business  of  the  New  York  Custom-House  —  A  Senate  committee  re 
ports  the  facts  to  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Boutwell  —  The  Secretary 
makes  a  new  investigation  and  recommends  that  Collector  Murphy 
discontinue  the  "General  Order"  system  —  Murphy  allows  it  to  con 
tinue  indefinitely  —  A  second  Senate  investigation  ordered  —  The 
Leet  and  Stocking  mystery  explained  —  President  Grant  not  a  partici 
pant  in  the  profits  —  The  "General  Order"  system  broken  up  — 
Indignation  among  Republicans  resulting  from  the  exposure  .  .  361 

CHAPTER  XXV 
THE  CINCINNATI  CONVENTION 

The  Liberal  Republican  Convention  in  Missouri  calls  national  convention 
at  Cincinnati  —  Prompt  and  favorable  response  in  Ohio  and  other 
states  —  Cooperation  of  leading  Democrats  —  Springfield  Republican, 
Cincinnati  Commercial,  and  Chicago  Tribune,  Republican  newspapers, 
support  the  movement  —  Henry  Watterson,  Manton  Marble,  and 
August  Belmont,  Democrats,  cooperate  —  The  movement  in  Pennsyl 
vania  —  William  C.  Bryant  and  others  favor  the  nomination  of  Trum 
bull  for  President  —  Great  meeting  at  Cooper  Union,  New  York  — 
Governor  Palmer,  of  Illinois,  favors  the  movement  —  Charles  Francis 
Adams,  Horace  Greeley,  David  Davis,  B.  Gratz  Brown,  and  A.  G.  Cur- 
tin  mentioned  for  President  —  Correspondence  with  Trumbull  on  the 
subject  —  The  editors'  dinner  at  Murat  Halstead's  house  —  Platform 
embarrassment  —  The  tariff  question  referred  to  the  congressional  dis 
tricts  —  Frank  Blair  and  Gratz  Brown  cause  a  commotion  —  Carl 
Schurz  made  chairman  of  the  convention  —  Balloting  for  President  — 


xviii  CONTENTS 

Brown  withdraws  his  name  and  advises  his  friends  to  vote  for  Greeley — 
Greeley  nominated  on  the  sixth  ballot  —  Consternation  of  the  sup 
porters  of  Adams  and  Trumbull  —  Most  of  the  Liberal  Republican 
editors  decide  to  support  Greeley  —  Carl  Schurz  is  much  distressed  — 
Godkin  and  Bryant  reject  Greeley  —  Correspondence  between  Bryant 
and  Trumbull  —  Charles  Sumner's  hesitating  course  —  He  finally 
decides  to  support  Greeley  ....  ....  372 

CHAPTER  XXVI 
THE  GREELEY  CAMPAIGN 

How  Trumbull  received  the  news  —  Carl  Schurz  advises  Greeley  to  decline 
the  nomination  —  Greeley  decides  to  accept  it  —  Meeting  of  Liberal 
Republican  leaders  in  New  York  to  consider  their  course  —  Trumbull 
and  Schurz  decide  to  support  the  Cincinnati  ticket  —  Correspondence 
between  Schurz  and  Godkin  —  Parke  Godwin  against  Greeley  - 
President  Grant  renominated  by  the  Republicans  with  Henry  Wilson 
for  Vice- President  —  The  Democrats  at  Baltimore  adopt  both  nominees 
and  platform  of  the  Liberal  Republicans  —  A  minority  call  a  bolting 
convention,  which  nominates  Charles  O'Conor  —  Trumbull's  speech 
at  Springfield,  Illinois,  in  support  of  the  Cincinnati  ticket  —  Greeley 's 
campaign  starts  with  the  prospect  of  victory  —  North  Carolina  election 
in  August  gives  the  Grant  ticket  a  small  majority  —  The  tide  turns 
against  Greeley  —  Greeley  takes  the  stump  in  September  and  makes  a 
favorable  impression,  but  too  late  —  The  October  elections,  in  Pennsyl 
vania  and  Ohio,  go  heavily  Republican  —  Greeley  and  Brown  defeated 
—  Death  of  Greeley  following  the  election  —  State  election  in  Louisi 
ana  in  1872  —  Fraudulent  returns  in  favor  of  Kellogg  exposed  by 
Senators  Carpenter  and  Trumbull  —  Kellogg  sustained  by  President 
Grant  .  .  389 


CHAPTER  XXVII 
LATER  YEARS 

Trumbull's  senatorial  term  expires  in  1873  —  Not  reflected  —  He  resumes 
the  practice  of  law  in  Chicago  —  The  second  Grant  administration 
worse  than  the  first  —  The  Republican  party  beaten  in  the  congres 
sional  elections  of  1874  —  The  Hayes-Tilden  campaign  in  1876  — 
Disputed  returns  in  Louisiana,  South  Carolina,  and  Florida  —  The 
Electoral  Commission  —  "Visiting  Statesmen"  sent  to  Louisiana  to 
watch  the  count  of  the  votes  —  Trumbull  chosen  as  one  of  them  — 
Chosen  also  to  support  Tilden's  claim  before  the  electoral  commission 
—  His  argument  thereon  —  E.  W.  Stoughton,  in  behalf  of  Hayes,  con 
tends  that  the  returns  of  election  certified  by  the  governor  of  a  state 
must  be  accepted  —  Also  that  the  status  of  a  governor  recognized  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States  cannot  be  questioned  —  Both  these 
contentions  are  sustained  by  the  Electoral  Commission  —  By  a  vote  of 


CONTENTS  xix 

8  to  7  Hayes  is  declared  elected  President  —  TrumbuH's  marriage  to 
Miss  Mary  Ingraham  —  He  is  nominated  for  governor  of  Illinois  by 
the  Democrats  in  1880  —  Is  defeated  by  Shelby  M.  Cullom  —  My  last 
meeting  with  Trumbull  at  the  World's  Columbian  Exposition  —  Trum- 
bull's  professional  services  in  the  Debs  case  —  His  public  speech,  after 
the  case  was  decided  —  He  sides  with  the  Populist  party  —  Prepares 
their  declaration  of  principles  in  December,  1894  —  Text  of  the  Declara 
tion  407 

CHAPTER  XXVIII 
CONCLUSION 

Trumbull  goes  to  Belleville  to  attend  the  funeral  of  Gustave  Koerner  — 
Is  taken  with  illness  at  hotel  —  On  his  return  to  his  home  he  is  found  to 
be  suffering  from  an  internal  tumor  —  His  physicians  decide  that  a  sur 
gical  operation  would  be  fatal  —  He  lingers  till  June  5,  1896  —  Dies  in 
his  eighty-third  year  —  Impressive  funeral  —  His  great  qualities  as  a 
lawyer  and  political  debater  —  His  conscientiousness  and  courage  — 
His  generosity,  and  fondness  for  little  children  —  His  place  in  the 
country's  history  —  Eulogy  by  Joseph  Medill,  and  other  contempo 
raries  —  Trumbull's  estimate  of  Lincoln  —  His  religious  views  —  His 
surviving  family  and  descendants 418 

INDEX      .        .        .«-      .......  .433 


INTRODUCTION 

EVENTS  in  the  year  1854  brought  into  the  field  of 
national  politics  two  members  of  the  bar  of  southern 
Illinois  who  were  destined  to  hold  high  places  in  the  pub 
lic  councils  —  Abraham  Lincoln  and  Lyman  Trumbull. 
They  were  members  of  opposing  parties,  Lincoln  a  Whig, 
Trumbull  a  Democrat.  Both  were  supporters  of  the  com 
promise  measures  of  1850.  These  measures  had  been 
accepted  by  the  great  majority  of  the  people,  not  as 
wholly  satisfactory,  but  as  preferable  to  never-ending 
turmoil  on  the  slavery  question.  There  had  been  a  subsi 
dence  of  anti-slavery  propagandism  in  the  North,  follow 
ing  the  Free  Soil  campaign  of  1848.  Hale  and  Julian 
received  fewer  votes  in  1852  than  Van  Buren  and  Adams 
had  received  in  the  previous  election.  Franklin  Pierce 
(Democrat)  had  been  elected  President  of  the  United 
States  by  so  large  a  majority  that  the  Whig  party  was 
practically  killed.  President  Pierce  in  his  first  message  to 
Congress  had  alluded  to  the  quieting  of  sectional  agita 
tion  and  had  said:  "That  this  repose  is  to  suffer  no  shock 
during  my  official  term,  if  I  have  the  power  to  avert  it, 
those  who  placed  me  here  may  be  assured."  Doubtless 
the  Civil  War  would  have  come,  even  if  Pierce  had  kept  his 
promise  instead  of  breaking  it;  for,  as  Lincoln  said  a  little 
later:  "A  house  divided  against  itself  cannot  stand." 

It  was  not  at  variance  with  itself  on  the  slavery  ques 
tion  solely.  In  fact,  the  North  did  not  take  up  arms 
against  slavery  when  the  crisis  came.  A  few  men  foresaw 
that  a  war  raging  around  that  institution  would  somehow 
and  sometime  give  it  its  death-blow,  but  at  the  beginning 
the  Northern  soldiers  marched  with  no  intention  of  that 


xxii  INTRODUCTION 

kind.  They  had  an  eye  single  to  the  preservation  of  the 
Union.  The  uprising  which  followed  the  firing  upon  Fort 
Sumter  was  a  passionate  protest  against  the  insult  to  the 
national  flag.  It  betokened  a  fixed  purpose  to  defend 
what  the  flag  symbolized,  and  it  was  only  slowly  and 
hesitatingly  that  the  abolition  of  slavery  was  admitted  as 
a  factor  and  potent  issue  in  the  Northern  mind. 

It  is  true  that  the  South  seceded  in  order  to  preserve 
and  extend  slavery,  but  it  was  penetrated  with  the  belief 
that  it  had  a  perfect  right  to  secede — not  merely  the  right 
of  revolution  which  our  ancestors  exercised  in  separating 
from  Great  Britain,  but  a  right  under  the  Constitution. 

The  states  under  the  Confederation,  during  the  Revo 
lutionary  period  and  later,  were  actually  sovereign.  The 
Articles  of  Confederation  declared  them  to  be  so.  When 
the  Constitution  was  formed,  the  habit  of  state  sover 
eignty  was  so  strong  that  it  was  only  with  the  greatest 
difficulty  that  its  ratification  by  the  requisite  number  of 
states  could  be  obtained.  John  Quincy  Adams  said  that 
it  was  "extorted  from  the  grinding  necessity  of  a  reluctant 
people."  The  instrument  itself  provided  a  common 
tribunal  (the  Supreme  Court)  as  arbiter  for  the  decision 
of  all  disputed  questions  arising  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States.  But  it  was  not  generally 
supposed  that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court  included  the 
power  to  extinguish  state  sovereignty.1 

1  Mr.  H.  C.  Lodge,  in  his  Life  of  Daniel  Webster,  says,  touching  the  debate 
with  Hayne  in  1830: 

"When  the  Constitution  was  adopted  by  the  votes  of  states  at  Philadelphia, 
and  accepted  by  the  votes  of  states  in  popular  conventions,  it  is  safe  to  say  that 
there  was  not  a  man  in  the  country,  from  Washington  and  Hamilton,  on  the  one 
side,  to  George  Clinton  and  George  Mason,  on  the  other,  who  regarded  the  new 
system  as  anything  but  an  experiment  entered  upon  by  the  states,  and  from 
which  each  and  every  state  had  the  right  to  peaceably  withdraw,  a  right  which 
was  very  likely  to  be  exercised." 

Mr.  Gaillard  Hunt,  author  of  the  Life  of  James  Madison,  and  editor  of 
his  writings,  has  published  recently  a  confidential  memorandum  dated  May 


INTRODUCTION  xxiii 

The  first  division  of  political  parties  under  the  new 
government  was  the  outgrowth  of  emotions  stirred  by  the 
French  Revolution.  The  Republicans  of  the  period,  led 
by  Jefferson,  were  ardent  sympathizers  with  the  uprising 
in  France.  The  Federalists,  who  counted  Washington, 
Hamilton,  and  John  Adams  as  their  representative  men, 
were  opposed  to  any  connection  with  European  strife, 
or  to  any  fresh  embroilment  with  England,  growing  out 
of  it.  The  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws  were  passed  in  order 
to  suppress  agitation  tending  to  produce  such  embroil 
ment.  Jefferson  met  these  laws  with  the  "Resolutions  of 
'98,"  which  were  adopted  by  the  legislatures  of  Virginia 
and  Kentucky.  These  resolutions  affirmed  the  right  of 
'the  separate  states  to  judge  of  any  infraction  of  the  Con 
stitution  by  the  Federal  Government  and  also  of  the  mode 
and  measure  of  redress  —  a  claim  which  necessarily 
included  the  right  to  secede  from  the  Union  if  milder 
measures  failed.  The  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws  expired  by 
their  own  limitation  before  any  actual  test  of  their 
validity  took  place. 

The  next  assertion  of  the  right  of  the  states  to  nullify 
the  acts  of  the  Federal  Government  came  from  a  more 
northern  latitude  as  a  consequence  of  the  purchase  of 
Louisiana.  This  act  alarmed  the  New  England  States. 
The  Federalists  feared  lest  the  acquisition  of  this  vast 
domain  should  give  the  South  a  perpetual  preponderance 

11,  1794,  written  by  John  Taylor  of  Caroline  for  Mr.  Madison's  information, 
giving  an  account  of  a  long  and  solemn  interview  between  himself  and 
Rufus  King  and  Oliver  Ellsworth,  in  which  the  two  latter  affirmed  that,  by 
reason  of  differences  of  opinion  between  the  East  and  the  South,  as  to  the 
scope  and  functions  of  government,  the  Union  could  not  last  long.  There 
fore  they  considered  it  best  to  have  a  dissolution  at  once,  by  mutual  consent, 
rather  than  by  a  less  desirable  mode.  Taylor,  on  the  other  hand,  thought 
that  the  Union  should  be  supported  if  possible,  but  if  not  possible  he  agreed 
that  an  amicable  separation  was  preferable.  Madison  wrote  at  the  bottom 
of  this  paper  the  words:  "  The  language  of  K  and  E  probably  in  terrorem," 
and  laid  it  away  so  carefully  that  it  never  saw  the  light  until  the  year  1905. 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION 

and  control  of  the  Government.  Since  there  was  no  clause 
in  the  Constitution  providing  for  the  acquisition  of  new 
territory  (as  President  Jefferson  himself  conceded),  they 
affirmed  that  the  Union  was  a  partnership  and  that  a 
new  partner  could  not  be  taken  in  without  the  consent  of 
all  the  old  ones,  and  that  the  taking  in  of  a  new  one  with 
out  such  consent  would  release  the  old  ones. 

Controversy  on  this  theme  was  superseded  a  few  years 
later  by  more  acute  sources  of  irritation  —  the  Embargo 
and  War  of  1812.  These  events  fell  with  great  severity  on 
the  commerce  of  the  Northern  States,  and  led  to  the  pas 
sage  by  the  Massachusetts  legislature  of  anti-Embargo 
resolutions,  declaring  that  "when  the  national  compact  is 
violated  and  the  citizens  are  oppressed  by  cruel  and  un 
authorized  law,  this  legislature  is  bound  to  interpose  its 
power  and  wrest  from  the  oppressor  his  victim."  In  this 
doctrine  Daniel  Webster  concurred.  In  a  speech  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  December  9,  1814,  on  the 
Conscription  Bill,  he  said : 

The  operation  of  measures  thus  unconstitutional  and  illegal 
ought  to  be  prevented  by  a  resort  to  other  measures  which  are 
both  constitutional  and  legal.  It  will  be  the  solemn  duty  of  the 
State  Governments  to  protect  their  own  authority  over  their 
own  militia  and  to  interpose  between  their  own  citizens  and 
arbitrary  power.  .  .  .  With  the  same  earnestness  with  which 
I  now  exhort  you  to  forbear  from  these  measures  I  shall  exhort 
them  to  exercise  their  unquestionable  right  of  providing  for  the 
security  of  their  own  liberties.1 

The  anti-Embargo  resolutions  were  followed  by  the 
refusal  of  both  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut  to  allow 
federal  officers  to  take  command  of  their  militia  and  by 
the  call  for  the  Hartford  Convention.  The  latter  body 

1  Letters  of  Daniel  Webster,  edited  by  C.  W.  Van  Tyne,  p.  67.  Mr.  Van  Tyne 
says  that  Webster  "here  advocated  a  doctrine  hardly  distinguishable  from 
nullification." 


INTRODUCTION  xxv 

recommended  to  the  states  represented  in  it  the  adoption 
of  measures  to  protect  their  citizens  against  forcible 
drafts,  conscriptions,  or  impressments  not  authorized  by 
the  Constitution  —  a  phrase  which  certainly  meant  that 
the  states  were  to  judge  of  the  constitutionality  of  the 
measures  referred  to.  The  conclusion  of  peace  with  Great 
Britain  put  an  end  to  this  crisis  before  it  came  to  blows. 

On  February  26,  1833,  Mr.  Calhoun,  following  the 
Resolutions  of  '98,  affirmed  in  the  Senate  the  doctrine 
that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  was  a  compact, 
by  which  the  separate  states  delegated  to  it  certain 
definite  powers,  reserving  the  rest;  that  whenever  the 
general  Government  should  assume  the  exercise  of  pow 
ers  not  so  delegated,  its  acts  would  be  void  and  of  no 
effect;  and  that  the  said  Government  was  not  the  sole 
judge  of  the  powers  delegated  to  it,  but  that,  as  in  all 
other  cases  of  compact  among  sovereign  parties  without 
any  common  judge,  each  had  an  equal  right  to  judge  for 
itself,  as  well  of  the  infraction  as  of  the  mode  and  meas 
ures  of  redress.  This  was  the  stand  which  South  Caro 
lina  took  in  opposition  to  the  Force  Bill  of  President 
Jackson's  administration.1 

A  state  convention  of  South  Carolina  was  called  which 
passed  an  ordinance  nullifying  the  tariff  law  of  the 
United  States  and  declaring  that,  if  any  attempt  were 
made  to  collect  customs  duties  under  it  by  force,  that 
state  would  consider  herself  absolved  from  all  allegiance 
to  the  Union  and  would  proceed  at  once  to  organize  a 

1  Referring  to  this  speech  of  Calhoun  and  to  Webster's  reply,  Mr.  Lodge 
says: 

"Whatever  the  people  of  the  United  States  understood  the  Constitution  to 
mean  in  1789,  there  can  be  no  question  that  a  majority  in  1833  regarded  it  as 
a  fundamental  law  and  not  a  compact,  —  an  opinion  which  has  now  become 
universal.  But  it  was  quite  another  thing  to  argue  that  what  the  Constitution 
had  come  to  mean  was  what  it  meant  when  it  was  adopted." 

See  also  Pendleton's  Life  of  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  chap,  xi. 


xxvi  INTRODUCTION 

separate  government.  President  Jackson  was  determined 
to  exercise  force,  and  would  have  done  so  had  not  Con 
gress,  under  the  lead  of  Henry  Clay,  passed  a  compromise 
tariff  bill  which  enabled  South  Carolina  to  repeal  her 
ordinance  and  say  that  she  had  gained  the  substantial 
part  of  her  contention. 

Despite  the  later  speeches  of  Webster,  the  doctrine  of 
nullification  had  a  new  birth  in  Massachusetts  in  1845, 
the  note  of  discord  having  been  called  forth  by  the  pro 
posed  admission  of  Texas  into  the  Union.  In  that  year  the 
legislature  passed  and  the  governor  approved  resolutions 
declaring  that  the  powers  of  Congress  did  not  embrace  a 
case  of  the  admission  of  a  foreign  state  or  a  foreign  terri 
tory  into  the  Union  by  an  act  of  legislation  and  "such  an 
act  would  have  no  binding  power  whatever  on  the  people 
of  Massachusetts."  This  was  a  fresh  outcropping  of 
the  bitterness  which  had  prevailed  in  the  New  England 
States  against  the  acquisition  of  Louisiana. 

Thus  it  appears  that,  although  the  Constitution  did 
create  courts  to  decide  all  disputes  arising  under  it,  the 
particularism  which  previously  prevailed  continued  to 
exist.  Nationalism  was  an  aftergrowth  proceeding  from 
the  habit  into  which  the  people  fell  of  finding  their  com 
mon  centre  of  gravity  at  Washington  City,  and  of  view 
ing  it  as  the  place  where  the  American  name  and  fame 
were  embodied  and  emblazoned  to  the  world.  During  the 
first  half -century  the  North  and  the  South  were  changing 
coats  from  time  to  time  on  the  subject  of  state  sover 
eignty,  but  meanwhile  the  Constitution  itself  was  working 
silently  and  imperceptibly  in  the  North  to  undermine 
particularism  and  to  strengthen  nationalism.  It  had 
accomplished  its  educational  work  in  the  early  thirties 
when  it  found  its  complete  expression  in  Webster's  reply 
to  Hayne.  But  the  South  believed  just  as  firmly  that 


INTRODUCTION  xxvii 

Hayne  was  the  victor  in  that  contest,  as  the  North 
believed  that  Webster  was.  Hayne's  speech  was  not 
generally  read  in  the  North  either  then  or  later.  It 
was  not  inferior,  in  the  essential  qualities  of  dignity, 
courtesy,  legal  lore,  and  oratorical  force,  to  that  of  his 
great  antagonist.  Webster  here  met  a  foeman  worthy 
of  his  steel. 

In  the  South  the  pecuniary  interests  bottomed  on 
slavery  offset  and  neutralized  the  unifying  process  that 
was  ripening  in  the  North.  The  slavery  question  entered 
into  the  debate  between  Webster  and  Calhoun  in  1833 
sufficiently  to  show  that  it  lay  underneath  the  other 
questions  discussed.  Calhoun,  in  the  speech  referred  to, 
reproached  Forsyth,  of  Georgia,  for  dullness  in  not  seeing 
how  state  rights  and  slavery  were  dovetailed  together  and 
how  the  latter  depended  on  the  former. 

That  African  slavery  was  the  most  direful  curse  that 
ever  afflicted  any  civilized  country  may  now  be  safely 
affirmed.  It  had  its  beginning  in  our  country  in  the 
year  1619  at  Jamestown,  Virginia,  where  a  Dutch  warship 
short  of  provisions  exchanged  fourteen  negroes  for  a 
supply  thereof.  Slavery  of  both  Indians  and  negroes 
already  existed  in  the  West  Indies  and  was  regarded  with 
favor  by  the  colonists  and  their  home  governments.  It 
began  in  Massachusetts  in  1637  as  a  consequence  of  hos 
tilities  with  the  aborigines,  the  slaves  being  captives  taken 
in  war.  They  were  looked  upon  by  the  whites  as  heathen 
and  were  treated  according  to  precedents  found  in  the 
Old  Testament  for  dealing  with  the  enemies  of  Jehovah. 
In  order  that  they  might  not  escape  from  servitude  they 
were  sent  to  the  West  Indies  to  be  exchanged  for  negroes, 
and  this  slave  trade  was  not  restricted  to  captives  taken 
in  war,  but  was  applied  to  any  red  men  who  could  be 
safely  seized  and  shipped  away. 


xxviii  INTRODUCTION 

From  these  small  beginnings  slavery  spread  over  all  the 
colonies  from  Massachusetts  to  Georgia  and  lasted  in  all 
of  them  for  a  century  and  a  half,  i.e.,  until  after  the  close 
of  the  Revolutionary  War.  Then  it  began  to  lose  ground 
in  the  Northern  States.  Public  sentiment  turned  against 
it  in  Massachusetts,  but  all  attempts  to  abolish  it  there 
by  act  of  the  legislature  failed.  Its  death-blow  was  given 
by  a  judicial  decision  in  1783  in  a  case  where  a  master  was 
prosecuted,  convicted,  and  fined  forty  shillings  for  beat 
ing  a  slave.1 

Public  opinion  sustained  this  judgment,  although  there 
had  been  no  change  in  the  law  since  the  time  when  the 
Pequot  Indians  were  sent  by  shiploads  to  the  Bermudas 
to  be  exchanged  for  negroes.  If  masters  could  not  punish 
their  slaves  in  their  discretion,  —  if  slaves  had  any  rights 
which  white  men  were  bound  to  respect,  —  slavery  was 
virtually  dead.  No  law  could  kill  it  more  effectually, 

In  one  way  and  another  the  emancipation  movement 
extended  southward  to  and  including  Pennsylvania  in  the 
later  years  of  the  eighteenth  century.  Nearly  all  the 
statesmen  of  the  Revolution  looked  upon  the  institu 
tion  with  disfavor  and  desired  its  extinction.  Thomas 
Jefferson  favored  gradual  emancipation  in  Virginia,  to 
be  coupled  with  deportation  of  the  emancipated  blacks, 
because  he  feared  trouble  if  the  two  races  were  placed 
upon  an  equality  in  the  then  slaveholding  states.  He 
labored  to  prevent  the  extension  of  slavery  into  the  new 
territories,  and  he  very  nearly  succeeded.  In  the  year 
1784  he  reported  an  ordinance  in  the  Congress  of  the 
Confederation  to  organize  all  the  unoccupied  territory, 
both  north  and  south  of  the  Ohio  River,  in  ten  sub 
divisions,  in  all  of  which  slavery  should  be  forever  pro 
hibited,  and  this  ordinance  failed  of  adoption  by  only  one 

1  G.  H.  Moore's  History  of  Slavery  in  Massachusetts,  p.  215. 


INTRODUCTION  xxix 

vote.  Six  states  voted  in  the  affirmative.  Seven  were 
necessary.  Only  one  representative  of  New  Jersey  hap 
pened  to  be  present,  whereas  two  was  the  smallest  num 
ber  that  could  cast  the  vote  of  any  state.  If  one  other 
member  from  New  Jersey  had  been  there,  the  Jeffersonian 
ordinance  of  1784  would  have  passed;  slavery  would  have 
been  restricted  to  the  seaboard  states  which  it  then  occu 
pied,  and  would  never  have  drawn  the  sword  against 
the  Union,  and  the  Civil  War  would  not  have  taken 
place.1 

After  the  emancipation  movement  came  to  a  pause, 
at  the  southern  border  of  Pennsylvania,  the  fact  became 
apparent  that  there  was  a  dividing  line  between  free 
states  and  slave  states,  and  a  feeling  grew  up  in  both  sec 
tions  that  neither  of  them  ought  to  acquire  a  preponder 
ance  of  power  and  mastery  over  the  other.  The  slavery 
question  was  not  concerned  with  this  dispute,  but  a  habit 
grew  up  of  admitting  new  states  to  the  Union  in  pairs, 
in  order  to  maintain  a  balance  of  power  in  the  national 
Senate.  Thus  Kentucky  and  Vermont  offset  each  other, 
then  Tennessee  and  Ohio,  then  Louisiana  and  Indiana, 
then  Mississippi  and  Illinois. 

In  1819,  Alabama,  a  new  slave  state,  was  admitted  to 
the  Union  and  there  was  no  new  free  state  to  balance  it. 
The  Territory  of  Missouri,  in  which  slavery  existed,  was 
applying 'for  admission  also.  While  Congress  was  con 
sidering  the  Missouri  bill,  Mr.  Tallmadge,  of  New  York, 
with  a  view  of  preserving  the  balance  of  power,  offered  an 

1  Jefferson  was  cut  to  the  heart  by  this  failure.  Commenting  on  an 
article  entitled  "  fitats  Unis  "  in  the  Encyclopedic,  written  by  M.  de  Meus- 
nier,  referring  to  his  proposed  anti-slavery  ordinance,  he  said: 

"  The  voice  of  a  single  individual  of  the  State  which  was  divided,  or  one 
of  those  which  were  of  the  negative,  would  have  prevented  this  abomina 
ble  crime  from  spreading  itself  over  the  new  country.  Thus  we  see  the  fate 
of  millions  unborn  hanging  on  the  tongue  of  one  man,  and  Heaven  was  silent 
in  that  awful  moment." 


INTRODUCTION 

amendment  providing  for  the  gradual  emancipation  of 
slaves  in  the  proposed  state,  and  prohibiting  the  intro 
duction  of  additional  slaves.  This  amendment  was 
adopted  by  the  House  by  a  sectional  vote,  nearly  all  the 
Northern  members  voting  for  it  and  the  Southern  ones 
against  it,  but  it  was  rejected  by  the  Senate. 

In  the  following  year  the  Missouri  question  came  up 
afresh,  and  Senator  Thomas,  of  Illinois,  proposed,  as  a 
compromise,  that  Missouri  should  be  admitted  to  the 
Union  with  slavery,  but  that  in  all  the  remaining  terri 
tory  north  of  36  degrees  and  30  minutes  north  latitude, 
slavery  should  be  forever  prohibited.  This  amendment 
was  adopted  in  the  Senate  by  24  to  20,  and  in  the  House 
by  90  to  87.  Of  the  affirmative  votes  in  the  House  only 
fourteen  were  from  the  North,  and  nearly  all  of  these 
fourteen  members  became  so  unpopular  at  home  that 
they  lost  their  seats  in  the  next  election.  The  Missouri 
Compromise  was  generally  considered  a  victory  for  the 
South,  but  one  great  Southerner  considered  it  the  death- 
knell  of  the  Union.  Thomas  Jefferson  was  still  living,  at 
the  age  of  seventy-seven.  He  saw  what  this  sectional  rift 
portended,  and  he  wrote  to  John  Holmes,  one  of  his  cor 
respondents,  under  date  of  April  22,  1820: 

This  momentous  question,  like  a  fire-bell  in  the  night, 
awakened  me  and  filled  me  with  terror.  I  considered  it  at  once 
as  the  knell  of  the  Union.  It  is  hushed,  indeed,  for  the  moment. 
But  this  is  a  reprieve  only,  not  a  final  sentence.  A  geographical 
line,  coinciding  with  a  marked  principle,  moral  and  political, 
once  conceived  and  held  up  to  the  angry  passions  of  men,  will 
never  be  obliterated,  and  every  new  irritation  will  mark  it 
deeper  and  deeper. 

Nearly  all  of  the  emancipationists,  during  the  decade 
following  the  adoption  of  the  Compromise,  were  in  the 
slaveholding  states,  since  the  evil  had  its  seat  there.  The 


INTRODUCTION  xxxi 

Colonization  Society's  headquarters  were  in  Washington 
City.  Its  president,  Bushrod  Washington,  was  a  Virgin 
ian,  and  James  Madison,  Henry  Clay,  and  John  Ran 
dolph,  leading  Southerners,  were  its  active  supporters. 
The  only  newspaper  devoted  specially  to  the  cause  (the 
Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation),  edited  by  Benjamin 
Lundy  and  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  was  published  in  the 
city  of  Baltimore.  This  paper  was  started  in  1829,  but 
it  was  short-lived.  Mr.  Garrison  soon  perceived  that 
colonization,  depending  upon  voluntary  emancipation 
alone,  would  never  bring  slavery  to  an  end,  since  emanci 
pation  was  doubtful  and  sporadic,  while  the  natural  in 
crease  of  slaves  was  certain  and  vastly  greater  than  their 
possible  deportation.  For  this  reason  he  began  to  advo 
cate  emancipation  without  regard  to  colonization.  This 
policy  was  so  unpopular  in  Maryland  and  Virginia  that 
his  subscription  list  fell  nearly  to  zero,  and  this  compelled 
the  discontinuance  of  the  paper  and  his  removal  to  an 
other  sphere  of  activity.  He  returned  to  his  native  state, 
Massachusetts,  and  there  started  another  newspaper, 
entitled  the  Liberator,  in  1831.  The  first  anti-slavery 
crusade  in  the  North  thus  had  its  beginning.  It  did  not 
take  the  form  of  a  political  party.  It  was  an  agitation,  an 
awakening  of  the  public  conscience.  Its  tocsin  was  imme 
diate  emancipation,  as  opposed  to  emancipation  condi 
tioned  upon  deportation. 

The  slaveholders  were  alarmed  by  this  new  movement 
at  the  North.  They  thought  that  it  aimed  to  incite  slave 
insurrection.  The  governor  of  South  Carolina  made  it  the 
subject  of  a  special  message.  The  legislature  of  Georgia 
passed  and  the  governor  signed  resolutions  offering  a 
reward  of  $5000  to  anybody  who  would  bring  Mr.  Garri 
son  to  that  state  to  be  tried  for  sedition.  The  mayor 
of  Boston  was  urged  by  prominent  men  in  the  South  to 


xxxii  INTRODUCTION 

suppress  the  Liberator,  although  the  paper  was  then  so 
obscure  at  home  that  the  mayor  had  never  seen  a  copy  of 
it,  or  even  heard  of  its  existence.  The  fact  that  there  was 
any  organized  expression  of  anti-slavery  thought  any 
where  was  first  made  generally  known  at  the  North  by 
the  extreme  irritation  of  the  South;  and  when  the  temper 
of  the  latter  became  known,  the  vast  majority  of  North 
ern  people  sided  with  their  Southern  brethren.  They 
were  opposed  to  anything  which  seemed  likely  to  lead  to 
slave  insurrection  or  to  a  disruption  of  the  Union.  The 
abolitionist  agitation  seemed  to  be  a  provocation  to  both. 
Hence  arose  anger  and  mob  violence  against  the  aboli 
tionists  everywhere.  This  feeling  took  the  shape  of  a 
common  understanding  not  to  countenance  any  discus 
sion  of  the  slavery  question  in  any  manner  or  anywhere. 
The  execution  of  this  tacit  agreement  fell  for  the  most 
part  into  the  hands  of  the  disorderly  element  of  society, 
but  disapproval  of  the  Garrisonian  crusade  was  expressed 
by  men  of  the  highest  character  in  the  New  England 
States,  such  as  William  Ellery  Channing  and  Dr. 
Francis  Wayland.  The  latter  declined  to  receive  the 
Liberator,  when  it  was  sent  to  him  gratuitously. 

What  was  going  on  in  the  South  during  the  thirties  and 
forties  of  the  last  century?  There  were  varying  shades  of 
opinion  and  mixed  motives  and  fluctuating  political  cur 
rents.  In  the  first  place  cotton-growing  had  been  made 
profitable  by  the  invention  of  the  cotton-gin.  This 
machine  for  separating  the  seeds  from  the  fibre  of  the 
cotton  plant  caused  an  industrial  revolution  in  the  world, 
and  its  moral  consequences  were  no  less  sweeping.  It 
changed  the  slaveholder's  point  of  view  of  the  whole 
slavery  question.  The  previously  prevailing  idea  that 
slavery  was  morally  wrong,  and  an  evil  to  both  master 


INTRODUCTION  xxxiii 

and  slave,  gradually  gave  way  to  the  belief  that  it  was 
beneficial  to  both,  that  it  was  an  agency  of  civilization 
and  a  means  of  bringing  the  blessings  of  Christianity  to 
the  benighted  African.  This  change  of  sentiment  in  the 
South,  which  became  very  marked  in  the  early  thirties, 
has  been  ascribed  to  the  bad  language  of  the  abolitionists 
of  the  North.  People  said  that  the  prime  cause  of  the 
trouble  was  that  Garrison  and  his  followers  did  not  speak 
easy.  They  were  too  vociferous.  They  used  language  cal 
culated  to  make  Southerners  angry  and  to  stir  up  slave 
insurrection.  But  how  could  anybody  draw  the  line 
between  different  tones  of  voice  and  different  forms  of 
expression?  Thomas  Jefferson  was  not  a  speak-easy.  He 
said  that  one  hour  of  slavery  was  fraught  with  more 
misery  than  ages  of  that  which  led  us  to  take  up  arms 
against  Great  Britain.  If  Garrison  ever  said  anything 
more  calculated  to  incite  slaves  to  insurrection  than  that, 
I  cannot  recall  it.  On  the  other  hand,  Elijah  Lovejoy,  at 
Alton,  Illinois,  was  a  speak-easy.  He  did  not  use  any 
violent  language,  but  he  was  put  to  death  by  a  mob  for 
making  preparations  to  publish  a  newspaper  in  which 
slavery  should  be  discussed  in  a  reasonable  manner,  if 
there  was  such  a  manner. 

Nevertheless,  the  Garrisonian  movement  was  errone 
ously  interpreted  at  the  South  as  an  attempt  to  incite 
slave  insurrection  with  the  attendant  horrors  of  rapine  and 
bloodshed.  There  were  no  John  Browns  then,  and  Gar 
rison  himself  was  a  non-resistant,  but  since  insurrection 
was  a  possible  consequence  of  agitation,  the  Southern 
people  demanded  that  the  agitation  should  be  put  down 
by  force.  As  that  could  not  be  done  in  any  lawful  way, 
and  since  unlawful  means  were  ineffective,  they  consid 
ered  themselves  under  a  constant  threat  of  social  up 
heaval  and  destruction.  The  repeated  declaration  of 


xxxiv  INTRODUCTION 

Northern  statesmen  that  there  never  would  be  any  out 
side  interference  with  slavery  in  the  states  where  it  ex 
isted,  did  not  have  any  quieting  effect  upon  them.  The 
fight  over  the  Missouri  Compromise  had  convinced  them 
that  the  North  would  prevent,  if  possible,  the  extension 
of  slavery  to  the  new  territories,  and  that  this  meant  con 
fining  the  institution  to  a  given  space,  where  it  would 
be  eventually  smothered.  It  might  last  a  long  time  in  its 
then  boundaries,  but  it  would  finally  reach  a  limit  where 
its  existence  would  depend  upon  the  forbearance  of  its 
enemies.  Then  the  question  which  perplexed  Thomas 
Jefferson  would  come  up  afresh:  "What  shall  be  done 
with  the  blacks?"  Mr.  Garrott  Brown,  of  Alabama,  a 
present-day  writer  of  ability  and  candor,  thinks  that  the 
underlying  question  in  the  minds  of  the  Southern  people 
in  the  forties  and  fifties  of  the  last  century  was  not  chiefly 
slavery,  but  the  presence  of  Africans  in  large  numbers, 
whether  bond  or  free.  This  included  the  slavery  question 
as  a  dollar-and-cent  proposition  and  something  more. 
Mrs.  Fanny  Kemble  Butler,  who  lived  on  a  Georgia  plan 
tation  in  the  thirties,  said  that  the  chief  obstacle  to  eman 
cipation  was  the  fact  that  every  able-bodied  negro  could 
be  sold  for  a  thousand  dollars  in  the  Charleston  market. 
Both  fear  and  cupidity  were  actively  at  work  in  the 
Southern  mind. 

In  short,  there  was  already  an  irrepressible  conflict  in 
our  land,  although  nobody  had  yet  used  those  words. 
There  was  a  fixed  opinion  in  the  North  that  slavery  was 
an  evil  which  ought  not  to  be  extended  and  enlarged; 
that  the  same  reasons  existed  for  curtailing  it  as  for  stop 
ping  the  African  slave  trade.  There  was  a  growing  opin 
ion  in  the  South  that  such  extension  was  a  vital  necessity 
and  that  the  South  in  contending  for  it  was  contending 
for  existence.  The  prevailing  thought  in  that  quarter  was 


INTRODUCTION  xxxv 

that  the  Southern  people  were  on  the  defensive,  that  they 
were  resisting  aggression.  In  this  feeling  they  were  sin 
cere  and  they  gave  expression  to  it  in  very  hot  temper. 

General  W.  T.  Sherman,  who  was  at  the  head  of  an 
institution  of  learning  for  boys  in  Louisiana  in  1859,  felt 
that  he  was  treading  on  underground  fires.  In  December 
of  that  year  he  wrote  to  Thomas  Ewing,  Jr. : 

Negroes  in  the  great  numbers  that  exist  here  must  of  ne 
cessity  be  slaves.  Theoretical  notions  of  humanity  and  reli 
gion  cannot  shake  the  commercial  fact  that  their  labor  is  of 
great  value  and  cannot  be  dispensed  with.  Still,  of  course, 
I  wish  it  never  had  existed,  for  it  does  make  mischief.  No 
power  on  earth  can  restrain  opinion  elsewhere  and  these 
opinions  expressed  beget  a  vindictive  feeling.  The  mere 
dread  of  revolt,  sedition,  or  external  interference  makes  men, 
ordinarily  calm,  almost  mad.  I,  of  course,  do  not  debate  the 
question,  and  moderate  as  my  views  are,  I  feel  that  I  am 
suspected,  and  if  I  do  not  actually  join  in  the  praises  of 
slavery  I  may  be  denounced  as  an  abolitionist.1 

1  General  W.  T.  Sherman  as  College  President,  p.  88. 


THE 
LIFE  OF  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

CHAPTER  I 

ANCESTRY  AND   EARLY   LIFE 

THE  subject  of  this  memoir  was  born  in  Colchester, 
Connecticut,  October  12,  1813.  The  Trumbull  family 
was  the  most  illustrious  in  the  state,  embracing  three 
governors  and  other  distinguished  men.  All  were  de 
scendants  of  John  Trumbull  (or  rather  "Trumble"  x),  a 
cooper  by  trade,  and  his  wife,  Ellenor  Chandler,  of  New 
castle,  England,  who  migrated  to  Massachusetts  in  1639, 
and  settled  first  in  Roxbury  and  removed  to  Rowley  in  the 
following  year.  Two  sons  were  born  to  them  in  Newcastle- 
on-Tyne:  Beriah,  1637  (died  in  infancy),  and  John,  1639. 

The  latter  at  the  age  of  thirty-one  removed  to  Suffield, 
Connecticut.  He  married  and  had  four  sons:  John, 
Joseph,  Ammi,  and  Benoni. 

Captain  Benoni  Trumbull,  married  to  Sarah  Drake 
and  settled  in  Lebanon,  Connecticut,  had  a  son,  Benja 
min,  born  May  11,  1712. 

This  Benjamin,  married  to  Mary  Brown  of  Hebron, 
Connecticut,  had  a  son,  Benjamin,  born  December  19, 
1735. 

This  son  was  graduated  at  Yale  College  in  1759,  and 
studied  for  the  ministry;  he  was  ordained  in  1760  at 
North  Haven,  Connecticut,  where  he  officiated  nearly 

1  Stuart's  Life  of  Jonathan  Trumbull  says  that  the  family  name  was  spelled 
"Trumble"  until  1766,  when  the  second  syllable  was  changed  to  "bull." 


'«'  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

sixty  years,  his  preaching  being  interrupted  only  by  the 
Revolutionary  War,  in  which  he  served  both  as  soldier 
and  as  chaplain.  He  was  the  author  of  the  standard 
colonial  history  of  Connecticut.  He  was  married  to  Miss 
Martha  Phelps  in  1760.  They  had  two  sons  and  five 
daughters. 

The  elder  son,  Benjamin,  born  in  North  Haven, 
September  24,  1769,  became  a  lawyer  and  married 
Elizabeth  Mather,  of  Saybrook,  Connecticut,  March  15, 
1800,  and  settled  in  Colchester,  Connecticut.  The  wife 
was  a  descendant  of  Rev.  Richard  Mather,  who  migrated 
from  Liverpool,  England,  to  Massachusetts  in  1635,  and 
was  the  father  of  Increase  Mather  and  grandfather  of 
Cotton  Mather,  both  celebrated  in  the  church  history  of 
New  England.  Eleven  children  were  born  to  these  par 
ents,  of  whom  Lyman  was  the  seventh.  This  Benjamin 
Trumbull  was  a  graduate  of  Yale  College,  representative 
in  the  legislature,  judge  for  the  probate  districts  of  East 
Haddam  and  Colchester,  and  died  in  Henrietta,  Jackson 
County,  Michigan,  June  14,  1850,  aged  eighty-one.  His 
wife  died  October  20,  1828,  in  her  forty-seventh  year. 
Lyman  Trumbull  was  thus  in  the  seventh  generation  of 
the  Trumbulls  in  America.1 

Five  brothers  and  two  sisters  of  Lyman  reached  ma 
turity.  A  family  of  this  size  could  not  be  supported  by 
the  fees  earned  by  a  country  lawyer  in  the  early  part  of 

1  Joseph,  the  second  son  of  the  John  above  mentioned,  who  had  settled  in 
Suffield,  Connecticut,  in  1670,  removed  to  Lebanon.  He  was  the  father  of 
Jonathan  Trumbull  (1710-1785),  who  was  governor  of  Connecticut  during  the 
Revolutionary  War,  and  who  was  the  original  "Brother  Jonathan,"  to  whom 
General  Washington  gave  that  endearing  title,  which  afterwards  came  to 
personify  the  United  States  as  "John  Bull"  personifies  England.  (Stuart's 
Jonathan  Trumbull,  p.  697.)  His  son  Jonathan  (1740-1809)  was  a  Representa 
tive  in  Congress,  Speaker  of  the  House,  Senator  of  the  United  States,  and 
Governor  of  Connecticut.  John  Trumbull  (1756-1843),  another  son  of 
"Brother  Jonathan,"  was  a  distinguished  painter  of  historical  scenes  and  of 
portraits. 


ANCESTRY  AND  EARLY  LIFE  3 

the  nineteenth  century.  The  only  other  resource  avail 
able  was  agriculture.  Thus  the  Trumbull  children  began 
life  on  a  farm  and  drew  their  nourishment  from  the  soil 
cultivated  by  their  own  labor.  It  is  recorded  that,  al 
though  the  father  and  the  grandfather  of  Lyman  were 
graduates  of  Yale  College,  chill  penury  prevented  him 
from  having  similar  advantages  of  education.  His  school 
ing  was  obtained  at  Bacon  Academy,  in  Colchester, 
which  was  of  high  grade,  and  second  only  to  Yale  among 
the  educational  institutions  of  the  state.  Here  the  boy 
Lyman  took  the  lessons  in  mathematics  that  were  cus 
tomary  in  the  academies  of  that  period,  and  became  con 
versant  with  Virgil  and  Cicero  in  Latin  and  with  Xeno- 
phon,  Homer,  and  the  New  Testament  in  Greek. 

The  opportunities  to  put  an  end  to  one's  existence  are 
so  common  to  American  youth  that  it  is  cause  for  wonder 
that  so  many  of  them  reach  mature  years.  Young  Trum 
bull  was  not  lacking  in  such  facilities.  The  following  inci 
dent  is  well  authenticated,  being  narrated  in  part  in  his 
own  handwriting: 

When  about  thirteen  years  old  he  was  playing  ball  one  cold 
day  in  the  family  yard.  The  well  had  a  low  curbing  around 
it  and  was  covered  by  a  round  flat  stone  with  a  round  hole  in 
the  top  of  it.  He  ran  towards  the  well  for  the  ball,  which  he 
picked  up  and  threw  quickly.  As  he  did  so  his  foot  slipped  on 
the  ice  and  he  went  head  first  down  the  well.  His  recollection 
of  the  immediate  details  is  vague,  but  he  did  not  break  his  neck 
or  stun  himself  on  the  rocky  sides,  but  appears  to  have  gone 
down  like  a  diver,  and  somehow  managed  to  turn  in  the  narrow 
space  and  come  up  head  first.  The  well  had  an  old-fashioned 
sweep  with  a  bucket  on  it,  which  his  brothers  promptly  lowered 
and  he  was  hoisted  out,  drenched  and  cold,  but  apparently  not 
otherwise  injured. 

He  attended  school  and  worked  on  the  farm  until  he 
was  eighteen  years  of  age  when  he  earned  some  money  by 


4  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

teaching  the  district  school  one  year  at  Portland,  Con 
necticut.  At  the  age  of  nineteen  he  taught  school  one 
winter  in  New  Jersey,  returning  to  Colchester  the  follow 
ing  summer.  He  had  established  a  character  for  recti 
tude,  industry,  modesty,  sobriety,  and  good  manners,  so 
that  when,  in  his  twentieth  year  (1833),  he  decided  to  go 
to  the  state  of  Georgia  to  seek  employment  as  a  school 
teacher,  nearly  all  the  people  in  the  village  assembled  to 
wish  him  godspeed  on  that  long  journey,  which  was  made 
by  schooner,  sailing  from  the  Connecticut  River  to 
Charleston,  South  Carolina.  The  voyage  was  tempest 
uous  but  safe,  and  he  arrived  at  Charleston  with  one 
hundred  dollars  in  his  pocket  which  his  father  had  given 
him  as  a  start  in  life.  This  money  he  speedily  returned 
out  of  his  earnings  because  he  thought  his  father  needed 
it  more  than  himself. 

A  memorandum  made  by  himself  records  that  "on  the 
evening  of  the  day  when  he  arrived  at  Charleston  a 
nullification  meeting  was  held  in  a  large  warehouse.  The 
building  was  crowded,  so  he  climbed  up  on  a  beam  over 
head  and  from  that  elevated  position  overlooked  a 
Southern  audience  and  heard  two  of  the  most  noted 
orators  in  the  South,  Governor  Hayne,  and  John  C. 
Calhoun,  then  a  United  States  Senator.  He  remembers 
little  of  the  impression  they  made  upon  a  youth  of 
twenty,  except  that  he  thought  Hayne  an  eloquent 
speaker." 

From  Charleston  he  went  by  railroad  (the  first  one  he 
had  ever  seen  and  one  of  the  earliest  put  in  operation  in 
the  United  States)  to  a  point  on  the  Savannah  River 
opposite  Augusta,  Georgia,  and  thence  by  stage  to 
Milledgeville,  which  was  then  the  capital  of  Georgia. 
From  Milledgeville  he  walked  seventy-five  miles  to  Pike 
County,  where  he  had  some  hope  of  finding  employment. 


ANCESTRY  AND  EARLY  LIFE  5 

Being  disappointed  there  he  continued  his  journey  on 
foot  to  Greenville,  Meriwether  County,  where  he  had 
more  success  even  than  he  had  expected,  for  he  obtained 
a  position  as  principal  of  the  Greenville  Academy  at  a 
salary  of  two  hundred  dollars  per  year  in  addition  to  the 
fees  paid  by  the  pupils.  This  position  he  occupied  for 
three  years. 

While  at  Greenville  he  employed  his  leisure  hours 
reading  law  in  the  office  of  Hiram  Warner,  judge  of  the 
superior  court  of  Georgia,  afterwards  judge  of  the 
supreme  court  of  the  state  and  member  of  Congress.  In 
this  way  he  acquired  the  rudiments  of  the  profession.  As 
soon  as  he  had  gained  sufficient  capital  to  make  a  start  in 
life  elsewhere,  he  bought  a  horse,  and,  in  March,  1837, 
took  the  trail  through  the  "Cherokee  Tract"  toward  the 
Northwest.  This  trail  was  a  pathway  formed  by  driving 
cattle  and  swine  through  the  forest  from  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee  to  Georgia.  Dr.  Parks,  of  Greenville,  accom 
panied  Trumbull  during  a  portion  of  the  journey.  They 
traveled  unarmed  but  safely,  although  Trumbull  carried 
a  thousand  dollars  on  his  person,  the  surplus  earnings  of 
his  three  years  in  Georgia.  For  a  young  man  of  twenty- 
four  years  without  a  family  this  was  affluence  in  those 
days. 

Through  Kentucky,  Trumbull  continued  his  journey 
without  any  companion  and  made  his  entrance  into 
Illinois  at  Shawneetown,  on  the  Ohio  River,  where  he 
presented  letters  of  introduction  from  his  friends  in 
Georgia  and  was  cordially  welcomed.  After  a  brief  stay 
at  that  place  he  continued  his  journey  to  Belleville,  St. 
Clair  County,  bearing  letters  of  introduction  from  his 
Shawneetown  friends  to  Adam  W.  Snyder  and  Alfred 
Cowles,  prominent  members  of  the  bar  at  Belleville. 
Both  received  him  with  kindness  and  encouraged  him  to 


6  LYMAN   TRUMBULL 

make  his  home  there.  This  he  decided  to  do,  but  he  first 
made  a  visit  to  his  parental  home  in  Colchester,  going 
on  horseback  by  way  of  Jackson,  Michigan,  near  which 
town  three  of  his  older  brothers,  David,  Erastus,  and 
John,  had  settled  as  farmers. 

Returning  to  Belleville  in  August,  1837,  he  entered  the 
law  office  of  Hon.  John  Reynolds,  ex-governor  of  the 
state,  who  was  then  a  Representative  in  Congress  and 
was  familiarly  known  as  the  "Old  Ranger."  Reynolds 
held,  at  one  time  and  another,  almost  every  office  that 
the  people  of  Illinois  could  bestow,  but  his  fame  rests  on 
historical  writings  composed  after  he  had  withdrawn 
from  public  life.1 

For  how  long  a  time  Trumbull's  connection  with 
Governor  Reynolds  continued,  our  records  do  not  say, 
but  we  know  that  he  had  an  office  of  his  own  in  Belleville 
three  years  later,  and  that  his  younger  brother  George 
had  joined  him  as  a  student  and  subsequently  became  his 
partner. 

The  practice  of  the  legal  profession  in  those  days  was 
accomplished  by  "riding  on  the  circuit,"  usually  on 
horseback,  from  one  county  seat  to  another,  following  the 
circuit  judge,  and  trying  such  cases  as  could  be  picked  up 
by  practitioners  en  route,  or  might  be  assigned  to  them 
by  the  judge.  Court  week  always  brought  together  a 
crowd  of  litigants  and  spectators,  who  came  in  from  the 

1  Reynolds  wrote  a  Pioneer  History  of  Illinois  from  1637  to  1818,  and  also  a 
larger  volume  entitled  My  Own  Times.  The  latter  is  the  more  important  of  the 
two.  Although  crabbed  in  style,  it  is  an  admirable  compendium  of  the  social, 
political,  and  personal  affairs  of  Illinois  from  1800  to  1850.  Taking  events  at 
random,  in  short  chapters,  without  connection,  circumlocution,  or  ornament, 
he  says  the  first  thing  that  comes  into  his  mind  in  the  fewest  possible  words, 
makes  mistakes  of  syntax,  but  never  goes  back  to  correct  anything,  puts  down 
small  things  and  great,  tells  about  murders  and  lynchings,  about  footraces  in 
which  he  took  part,  and  a  hundred  other  things  that  are  usually  omitted  in 
histories,  but  which  throw  light  on  man  in  the  social  state,  all  interspersed  with 
sound  and  shrewd  judgments  on  public  men  and  events. 


ANCESTRY  AND  EARLY  LIFE  7 

surrounding  country  with  their  teams  and  provisions, 
and  often  with  their  wives  and  children,  and  who  lived 
in  their  own  covered  wagons.  The  trial  of  causes  was  the 
principal  excitement  of  the  year,  and  the  opposing  law 
yers  were  "sized  up"  by  juries  and  audience  with  a  pretty 
close  approach  to  accuracy.  After  adjournment  for  the 
day,  the  lawyers,  judges,  plaintiffs,  defendants,  and  lead 
ing  citizens  mingled  together  in  the  country  tavern, 
talked  politics,  made  speeches  or  listened  to  them,  cracked 
jokes  and  told  stories  till  bedtime,  and  took  up  the  unfin 
ished  lawsuit,  or  a  new  one,  the  next  day.  In  short, 
court  week  was  circus,  theatre,  concert,  and  lyceum  to  the 
farming  population,  but  still  more  was  it  a  school  of 
politics,  where  they  formed  opinions  on  public  affairs 
and  on  the  mental  calibre  of  the  principal  actors  therein. 

Two  letters  written  by  Trumbull  in  1837  to  his  father 
in  Colchester  have  escaped  the  ravages  of  time.  Neither 
envelopes  nor  stamps  existed  then.  Each  letter  con 
sisted  of  four  pages  folded  in  such  a  manner  that  the 
central  part  of  the  fourth  page,  which  was  left  blank, 
received  the  address  on  one  side  and  a  wafer  or  a  daub  of 
sealing  wax  on  the  other.  The  rate  of  postage  was  twenty- 
five  cents  per  letter,  and  the  writers  generally  sought  to 
get  their  money's  worth  by  taking  a  large  sheet  of  paper 
and  filling  all  the  available  space.  Prepayment  of  postage 
was  optional,  but  the  privilege  of  paying  in  advance  was 
seldom  availed  of,  the  writers  not  incurring  the  risk  of 
losing  both  letters  and  money.  Irregularity  in  the  mails 
is  noted  by  Trumbull,  who  mentions  that  a  letter  from 
Colchester  was  fifteen  days  en  route,  while  a  newspaper 
made  the  same  distance  in  ten. 

In  a  letter  dated  October  9,  1837,  he  tells  his  father 
that  he  is  already  engaged  in  a  law  case  involving  the 
ownership  of  a  house.  If  he  finds  that  he  can  earn  his 


8  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

living  in  the  practice  of  law,  he  shall  like  Belleville  very 
much.  In  the  same  missive  he  tells  his  sister  Julia  that 
balls  and  cotillions  are  frequent  in  Belleville,  and  that  he 
had  attended  one,  but  did  not  dance.  It  was  the  first  time 
he  had  attended  a  social  gathering  since  he  left  home  in 
1833.  He  adds,  "There  are  more  girls  here  than  I  was 
aware  of.  At  the  private  party  I  attended,  there  were 
about  fifteen,  all  residing  in  town."  The  writer  was  then 
at  the  susceptible  age  of  twenty-four. 

The  other  letter  gives  an  account  of  the  Alton  riot  and 
the  killing  of  Rev.  Elijah  P.  Lovejoy.  This  is  one  of  the 
few  contemporary  accounts  we  have  of  that  shocking 
event.  Although  he  was  not  an  eye-witness  of  the  riot, 
the  facts  as  stated  are  substantially  correct,  and  the  com 
ments  give  us  a  view  of  the  opinions  of  the  writer  at  the 
age  of  twenty-four,  touching  a  subject  in  which  he  was 
destined  to  play  an  important  part.  The  letter  is  sub 
joined  : 

BELLEVILLE,  SUNDAY,  Nov.  12,  1837. 

DEAR  FATHER:  Since  my  last  to  you  there  has  been  a  mob  to 
put  down  Abolitionism,  in  Alton,  thirty-five  miles  northwest 
of  this  place,  in  which  two  persons  were  killed  and  six  or  seven 
badly  wounded.  The  immediate  cause  of  the  riot  was  the 
attempt  by  a  Mr.  Lovejoy  to  establish  at  Alton  a  religious 
newspaper  in  which  the  principles  of  slavery  were  sometimes 
discussed.  Mr.  Lovejoy  was  a  Presbyterian  minister  and  for 
merly  edited  a  newspaper  in  St.  Louis,  but  having  published 
articles  in  his  paper  in  relation  to  slavery  which  were  offensive 
to  the  people  of  St.  Louis,  a  mob  collected,  broke  open  his 
office,  destroyed  his  press  and  type  and  scattered  it  through 
the  streets.  Immediately  after  this  transaction,  which  was  about 
a  year  since,  Mr.  Lovejoy  left  St.  Louis,  and  removed  to  Alton, 
where  he  attempted  to  re-establish  his  press,  but  he  had  not 
been  there  long  before  a  mob  assembled  there  also,  broke  into 
his  office  and  destroyed  his  press.  In  a  short  time  Mr.  Lovejoy 
ordered  another  press  which,  soon  after  its  arrival  in  Alton, 


ANCESTRY  AND  EARLY  LIFE  9 

was  taken  from  the  warehouse  (where  it  was  deposited),  by  a 
mob,  and  in  like  manner  destroyed.  Again  he  ordered  still 
another  press,  which  arrived  in  Alton  on  the  night  of  the  7th 
inst.,  and  was  safely  deposited  in  a  large  stone  warehouse  four 
or  five  storeys  high. 

Previous  to  the  arrival  of  this  press,  the  citizens  of  Alton  held 
several  public  meetings  and  requested  Mr.  L.  to  desist  from 
attempting  to  establish  his  press  there,  but  he  refused  to  do  so. 
Heretofore  no  resistance  had  ever  been  offered  to  the  mob,  but 
on  the  night  of  the  8th  inst.,  as  it  was  supposed  that  another 
attempt  might  possibly  be  made  to  destroy  the  press,  Mr.  L. 
and  some  18  or  20  of  his  friends  armed  themselves  and  re 
mained  in  the  warehouse,  where  Mr.  Gilman,  one  of  the 
owners  of  the  house,  addressed  the  mob  from  a  window,  and 
urged  them  to  desist,  told  them  that  there  were  several  armed 
men  in  the  house  and  that  they  were  determined  to  defend 
their  property.  The  mob  demanded  the  press,  which  not  being 
given  them,  they  commenced  throwing  stones  at  the  house  and 
attempted  to  get  into  it.  Those  from  within  then  fired  and 
killed  a  man  of  the  name  of  Bishop.  The  mob  then  procured 
arms,  but  were  unable  to  get  into  the  house.  At  last  they 
determined  on  firing  it,  to  which  end,  as  it  was  stone,  they  had 
to  get  on  the  roof,  which  they  did  by  means  of  a  ladder.  The 
firing  during  all  this  time,  said  to  be  about  an  hour,  was  con 
tinued  on  both  sides.  Mr.  Lovejoy  having  made  his  appearance 
near  one  of  the  doors  was  instantly  shot  down,  receiving  four 
balls  at  the  same  moment.  Those  within  agreed  to  surrender  if 
their  lives  would  be  protected,  and  soon  threw  open  the  doors 
and  fled.  Several  shots  were  afterward  fired,  but  no  one  was 
seriously  injured.  The  fire  was  then  extinguished  and  the  press 
taken  and  destroyed. 

So  ended  this  awful  catastrophe  which,  as  you  may  well  sup 
pose,  has  created  great  excitement  through  this  section  of  the 
country.  Mr.  Lovejoy  is  said  to  have  been  a  very  worthy  man, 
and  both  friends  and  foes  bear  testimony  to  the  excellence  of  his 
private  character.  Here,  the  course  of  the  mob  is  almost  uni 
versally  reprobated,  for  whatever  may  have  been  the  senti 
ments  of  Mr.  Lovejoy,  they  certainly  did  not  justify  the  mob 
taking  his  life.  It  is  understood  here  that  Mr.  L.  was  never  in 
the  habit  of  publishing  articles  of  an  insurrectionary  character, 


10  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

but  he  reasoned  against  slavery  as  being  sinful,  as  a  moral  and 
political  evil. 

His  death  and  the  manner  in  which  he  was  slain  will  make 
thousands  of  Abolitionists,  and  far  more  than  his  writings 
would  have  made  had  he  published  his  paper  an  hundred  years. 
This  transaction  is  looked  on  here,  as  not  only  a  disgrace  to 
Alton,  but  to  the  whole  State.  As  much  as  I  am  opposed  to  the 
immediate  emancipation  of  the  slaves  and  to  the  doctrine  of 
Abolitionism,  yet  I  am  more  opposed  to  mob  violence  and  out 
rage,  and  had  I  been  in  Alton,  I  would  have  cheerfully  marched 
to  the  rescue  of  Mr.  Lovejoy  and  his  property. 
Yours  very  affectionately, 

LYMAN  TRUMBULL. 

After  three  years  of  riding  on  the  circuit,  Trumbull 
was  elected,  in  1840,  a  member  of  the  lower  house  of  the 
state  legislature  from  St.  Clair  County.  In  politics  he  was 
a  Democrat  as  was  his  father  before  him.  This  was  the 
twelfth  general  assembly  of  the  state.  Among  his  fellow 
members  were  Abraharn  Lincoln,  E.  D.  Baker,  William 
A.  Richardson,  John  J.  Hardin,  John  A.  McClernand, 
William  H.  Bissell,  Thomas  Drummond,  and  Joseph 
Gillespie,  all  of  whom  were  destined  to  higher  positions. 

Trumbull  was  now  twenty-seven  years  of  age.  He  soon 
attracted  notice  as  a  debater.  His  style  of  speaking  was 
devoid  of  ornament,  but  logical,  clear-cut,  and  dignified, 
and  it  bore  the  stamp  of  sincerity.  He  had  a  well- 
furnished  mind,  and  was  never  at  loss  for  words.  Nor 
was  he  ever  intimidated  by  the  number  or  the  prestige  of 
his  opponents.  He  possessed  calm  intellectual  courage, 
and  he  never  declined  a  challenge  to  debate;  but  his  man 
ner  toward  his  opponents  was  always  that  of  a  high-bred 
gentleman. 

On  the  27th  of  February,  1841,  Stephen  A.  Douglas, 
who  was  Trumbull's  senior  by  six  months,  resigned  the 
office  of  secretary  of  state  of  Illinois  to  take  a  seat  on 


ANCESTRY  AND  EARLY  LIFE  11 

the  supreme  bench,  and  Trumbull  was  appointed  to  the 
vacancy.  There  had  been  a  great  commotion  in  state 
politics  over  this  office  before  Trumbull  was  appointed  to 
it.  Under  the  constitution  of  the  state,  the  governor  had 
the  right  to  appoint  the  secretary,  but  nothing  was  said 
in  that  instrument  about  the  power  of  removal.  Alex 
ander  P.  Field  had  been  appointed  secretary  by  Governor 
Edwards  in  1828,  and  had  remained  in  office  under 
Governors  Reynolds  and  Duncan.  Originally  a  strong 
Jackson  man,  he  was  now  a  Whig.  When  Governor 
Carlin  (Democrat)  was  elected  in  1838  he  decided  to 
make  a  new  appointment,  but  Field  refused  to  resign  and 
denied  the  governor's  right  to  remove  him.  The  State 
Senate  sided  with  Field  by  refusing  to  confirm  the  new 
appointee,  John  A.  McClernand.  After  the  adjournment 
of  the  legislature,  the  governor  reappointed  McClernand, 
who  sued  out  a  writ  of  quo  warranto  to  oust  Field.  The 
supreme  court,  consisting  of  four  members,  three  of  whom 
were  Whigs,  decided  in  favor  of  Field.  The  Democrats 
then  determined  to  reform  the  judiciary.  They  passed 
a  bill  in  the  legislature  adding  five  new  judges  to  the 
supreme  bench.  "It  was,"  says  historian  Ford,  "con 
fessedly  a  violent  and  somewhat  revolutionary  measure 
and  could  never  have  succeeded  except  in  times  of  great 
party  excitement."  In  the  mean  time  Field  had  retired 
and  the  governor  had  appointed  Douglas  secretary  of 
state,  and  Douglas  was  himself  appointed  one  of  the  five 
new  members  of  the  supreme  court.  Accordingly  he 
resigned,  after  holding  the  office  only  two  months,  and 
Trumbull  was  appointed  to  the  vacancy  without  his  own 
solicitation  or  desire. 

Two  letters  written  by  Trumbull  in  1842  acquaint  us 
with  the  fact  that  his  brother  Benjamin  had  removed 
with  his  family  from  Colchester  to  Springfield  and  was 


12  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

performing  routine  duties  in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of 
state,  while  Trumbull  occupied  his  own  time  for  the  most 
part  in  the  practice  of  law  before  the  supreme  court.  He 
adds:  "I  make  use  of  one  of  the  committee  rooms  in  the 
State  House  as  a  sleeping-room,  so  you  see  I  almost  live 
in  the  State  House,  and  am  the  only  person  who  sleeps  in 
it.  The  court  meets  here  and  all  the  business  I  do  is 
within  the  building."  Not  quite  all,  for  in  another  letter 
(November  27,  1842)  he  confides  to  his  sister  Julia  that 
a  certain  young  lady  in  Springfield  was  as  charming  as 
ever,  but  that  he  had  not  offered  her  his  hand  in  mar 
riage,  and  that  even  if  he  should  do  so,  it  was  not  cer 
tain  that  she  would  accept  it. 

Trumbull  had  held  the  office  of  secretary  of  state  two 
years  when  his  resignation  was  requested  by  Governor 
Carlin's  successor  in  office,  Thomas  Ford,  author  of  a 
History  of  Illinois  from  1814  to  1847.  In  his  book  Ford 
tells  his  reasons  for  asking  Trumbull's  resignation.  They 
had  formed  different  opinions  respecting  an  important 
question  of  public  policy,  and  Trumbull,  although  hold 
ing  a  subordinate  office,  had  made  a  public  speech  in 
opposition  to  the  governor's  views.1  Of  course  he  did  this 

1  The  following  correspondence  passed  between  them : 

SPRINGFIELD,  March  4,  1843. 
LYMAN  TRUMBULL,  ESQ., 

DEAR  SIR:  It  is  my  desire,  in  pursuance  of  the  expressed  wish  of  the 
Democracy,  to  make  a  nomination  of  Secretary  of  State,  and  I  hope  you  will 
enable  me  to  do  so  without  embarrassing  myself.   I  am  most  respectfully, 
Your  obedient  servant, 

THOMAS  FORD. 

SPRINGFIELD,  March  4,  1843. 
To  His  EXCELLENCY,  THOMAS  FORD: 

SIR,  —  In  reply  to  your  note  of  this  date  this  moment  handed  me,  I  have 
only  to  state  that  I  recognize  fully  your  right,  at  any  time,  to  make  a  nomina 
tion  of  Secretary  of  State. 

Yours  respectfully, 

LYMAN  TRUMBULL. 


ANCESTRY  AND  EARLY  LIFE  13 

on  his  own  responsibility  as  a  citizen  and  a  member  of 
the  same  party  as  the  governor.  He  acknowledged  the 
governor's  right  to  remove  him,  and  he  made  no  com 
plaint  against  the  exercise  of  it. 

The  question  of  public  policy  at  issue  between  Ford 
and  Trumbull  related  to  the  State  Bank,  which  had 
failed  in  February,  1842,  and  whose  circulating  notes, 
amounting  to  nearly  $3,000,000,  had  fallen  to  a  discount 
of  fifty  cents  on  the  dollar.  Acts  legalizing  the  bank's 
suspension  had  been  passed  from  time  to  time  and  things 
had  gone  from  bad  to  worse.  At  this  juncture  a  new  bill 
legalizing  the  suspension  for  six  months  longer  was  pre 
pared  by  the  governor  and  at  his  instance  was  reported 
favorably  by  the  finance  committee  of  the  House.  Trum 
bull  opposed  this  measure,  and  made  a  public  speech 
against  it.  He  maintained  that  it  was  disgraceful  and 
futile  to  prolong  the  life  of  this  bankrupt  concern.  He  de 
manded  that  the  bank  be  put  in  liquidation  without 
further  delay. 

When  Trumbull's  resignation  as  secretary  became 
known,  the  Democratic  party  at  the  state  capital  was 
rent  in  twain.  Thirty-two  of  its  most  prominent  members, 
including  Virgil  Hickox,  Samuel  H.  Treat,  Ebenezer 
Peck,  Mason  Brayman,  and  Robert  Allen,  took  this  occa 
sion  to  tender  him  a  public  dinner  in  a  letter  expressing 
their  deep  regret  at  his  removal  and  their  desire  to  show 
the  respect  in  which  they  held  him  for  his  conduct  of  the 
office,  and  for  his  social  and  gentlemanly  qualities.  A 
copy  of  this  invitation  was  sent  to  the  State  Register,  the 
party  organ,  for  publication.  The  publishers  refused  to 
insert  it,  on  the  ground  that  it  "would  lead  to  a  con 
troversy  out  of  which  no  good  could  possibly  arise,  and 
probably  much  evil  to  the  cause."  Thereupon  the  signers 
of  the  invitation  started  a  new  paper  under  the  watch- 


14  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

word  "Fiat  Justitia,  Ruat  Ccelum,"  entitled  the  Inde 
pendent  Democrat,  of  which  Number  1,  Volume  1,  was  a 
broadside  containing  the  correspondence  between  Trum- 
bull  and  the  intending  diners,  together  with  sarcastic 
reflections  on  the  time-serving  publishers  of  the  State 
Register.  Trumbull's  reply  to  the  invitation,  however, 
expressed  his  sincere  regret  that  he  had  made  arrange 
ments,  which  could  not  be  changed,  to  depart  from 
Springfield  before  the  time  fixed  for  the  dinner.  He 
returned  to  Belleville  and  resumed  the  practice  of  his 
profession. 

Charles  Dickens  was  then  making  his  first  visit  to  the 
United  States,  and  he  happened  to  pass  through  Belle 
ville  while  making  an  excursion  from  St.  Louis  to  Looking 
Glass  Prairie.  His  party  had  arranged  beforehand  for  a 
noonday  meal  at  Belleville,  of  which  place,  as  it  pre 
sented  itself  to  the  eye  of  a  stranger  in  1842,  he  gives  the 
following  glimpse: 

Belleville  was  a  small  collection  of  wooden  houses  huddled 
together  in  the  very  heart  of  the  bush  and  swamp.  Many  of 
them  had  singularly  bright  doors  of  red  and  yellow,  for  the  place 
had  lately  been  visited  by  a  traveling  painter  "who  got  along," 
as  I  was  told,  "by  eating  his  way."  The  criminal  court  was  sit 
ting  and  was  at  that  moment  trying  some  criminals  for  horse- 
stealing,  with  whom  it  would  most  likely  go  hard;  for  live  stock 
of  all  kinds,  being  necessarily  much  exposed  in  the  woods,  is 
held  by  the  community  in  rather  higher  value  than  human  life; 
and  for  this  reason  juries  generally  make  a  point  of  finding  all 
men  indicted  for  cattle-stealing,  guilty,  whether  or  no.  The 
horses  belonging  to  the  bar,  the  judge  and  witnesses,  were  tied 
to  temporary  racks  set  roughly  in  the  road,  by  which  is  to  be 
understood  a  forest  path  nearly  knee-deep  in  mud  and  slime. 

There  was  an  hotel  in  thif  place  which,  like  all  hotels  in 
America,  had  its  large  dining-room  for  a  public  table.  It  was 
an  odd,  shambling,  low-roofed  outhouse,  half  cow-shed  and  half 
kitchen,  with  a  coarse  brown  canvas  tablecloth,  and  tin  sconces 


ANCESTRY  AND  EARLY  LIFE  15 

stuck  against  the  walls,  to  hold  candles  at  supper-time.  The 
horseman  had  gone  forward  to  have  coffee  and  some  eatables 
prepared  and  they  were  by  this  time  nearly  ready.  He  had 
ordered  "wheat  bread  and  chicken  fixings"  in  preference  to 
"corn  bread  and  common  doings."  The  latter  kind  of  refection 
includes  only  pork  and  bacon.  The  former  comprehends  broiled 
ham,  sausages,  veal  cutlets,  steaks,  and  such  other  viands  of 
that  nature  as  may  be  supposed  by  a  tolerably  wide  poetical 
construction  "to  fix"  a  chicken  comfortably  in  the  digestive 
organs  of  any  lady  or  gentleman.1 

A  few  months  later,  Trumbull  made  another  journey 
to  Springfield  to  be  joined  in  marriage  to  Miss  Julia  M. 
Jayne,  a  daughter  of  Dr.  Gershom  Jayne,  a  physician  of 
that  city  —  a  young  lady  who  had  received  her  education 
at  Monticello  Seminary,  with  whom  he  passed  twenty- 
five  years  of  unalloyed  happiness.  The  marriage  took  place 
on  the  21st  of  June,  1843,  and  Norman  B.  Judd  served  as 
groomsman.  Miss  Jayne  had  served  in  the  capacity  of 
bridesmaid  to  Mary  Todd  at  her  marriage  to  Abraham 
Lincoln  on  the  4th  of  November  preceding.  There  was  a 
wedding  journey  to  Trumbull's  old  home  in  Connecticut, 
by  steamboat  from  St.  Louis  to  Wheeling,  Virginia,  by 
stage  over  the  mountains  to  Cumberland,  Maryland,  and 
thence  by  rail  via  Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  and  New 
York.  After  visiting  his  own  family,  a  journey  was  made 
to  Mrs.  Trumbull's  relatives  at  Stockbridge,  Massachu 
setts,  including  her  great-grandfather,  a  marvel  of  indus 
try  and  longevity,  ninety-two  years  of  age,  a  cooper  by 
trade,  who  was  still  making  barrels  with  his  own  hands. 
This  fact  is  mentioned  in  a  letter  from  Trumbull  to  his 
father,  dated  Barry,  Michigan,  August  20, 1843,  at  which 
place  he  had  stopped  on  his  homeward  journey  to  visit 

1  American  Notes,  chap.  xm.  The  reason  why  horses  were  more  precious 
than  human  life  was  that  when  the  frontier  farmer  lost  his  work-team,  he  faced 
starvation.  Both  murder  and  horse-stealing  were  then  capital  offenses,  the 
latter  by  the  court  of  Judge  Lynch. 


16  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

his  brothers.  One  page  of  this  letter  is  given  up  to  glowing 
accounts  of  the  infant  children  of  these  brothers.  And 
here  it  is  fitting  to  say  that  all  these  faded  and  time- 
stained  epistles  to  his  father  and  his  brothers  and  sisters, 
from  first  to  last,  are  marked  by  tender  consideration  and 
unvarying  love  and  generosity.  Not  a  shadow  passed 
between  them. 

The  return  journey  from  Michigan  to  Belleville  was 
made  by  stage-coach.  October  12,  1843,  Mrs.  Trumbull 
writes  to  her  husband's  sisters  in  Colchester  that  she  has 
arrived  in  her  new  home.  "We  are  boarding  in  a  private 
family,"  she  says,  "have  two  rooms  which  Mrs.  Black- 
well,  the  landlady,  has  furnished  neatly,  and  for  my  part, 
I  am  anticipating  a  very  delightful  winter.  Lyman  is  now 
at  court,  which  keeps  him  very  much  engaged,  and  I  am 
left  to  enjoy  myself  as  best  I  may  until  G.  comes  around 
this  afternoon  to  play  chess  with  me." 

May  4,  1844,  the  first  child  was  born  to  Lyman  and 
Julia  Trumbull,  a  son,  who  took  the  name  of  his  father, 
but  died  in  infancy.  July  2,  1844,  Trumbull  writes  to  his 
father  that  the  most  disastrous  flood  ever  known,  since 
the  settlement  of  the  country  by  the  whites,  has  devas 
tated  the  bottom  lands  of  the  Mississippi,  Missouri,  and 
Illinois  Rivers.  He  also  gives  an  account  of  the  killing  of 
Joseph  Smith,  the  Mormon  prophet,  who  was  murdered 
by  a  mob  in  the  jail  at  Carthage,  Hancock  County,  after 
he  had  surrendered  himself  to  the  civil  authorities  on 
promise  of  a  fair  trial  and  protection  against  violence;  and 
says  that  he  has  rented  a  house  which  he  shall  occupy 
soon,  and  invites  his  sister  Julia  to  come  to  Belleville  and 
make  her  home  in  his  family. 

In  1845,  Benjamin  Trumbull,  Sr.,  sold  his  place  in 
Colchester  and  removed  with  his  two  daughters  to 
Henrietta,  Michigan,  where  three  of  his  sons  were  already 


ANCESTRY  AND  EARLY  LIFE  17 

settled  as  farmers.  It  appears  from  letters  that  passed 
between  the  families  that  none  of  the  brothers  in  Michi 
gan  kept  horses,  the  farm  work  being  done  by  oxen  exclu 
sively.  The  nearest  church  was  in  the  town  of  Jackson, 
but  the  sisters  were  not  able  to  attend  the  services  for 
want  of  a  conveyance.  They  were  prevented  by  the  same 
difficulty  from  forming  acquaintances  in  their  new  habi 
tat.  In  a  letter  to  his  father,  dated  October  26,  Trumbull 
delicately  alludes  to  the  defect  in  the  housekeeping 
arrangements  in  Michigan,  and  says  that  anything  needed 
to  make  his  father  and  sisters  comfortable  and  con 
tented,  that  he  can  supply,  will  never  be  withheld.  His 
brother  George  writes  a  few  days  later  offering  a  con 
tribution  of  fifty  dollars  to  buy  a  horse,  saying  that  good 
ones  can  be  bought  in  Illinois  at  that  price.  George  adds : 
"Our  papers  say  considerable  about  running  Lyman  for 
governor.  No  time  is  fixed  for  the  convention  yet,  and  I 
don't  think  he  has  made  up  his  mind  whether  to  be  a 
candidate  or  not." 

The  greatest  drawback  of  the  Trumbull  family  at 
this  time,  and,  indeed,  of  all  the  inhabitants  roundabout, 
was  sickness.  Almost  every  letter  opened;  tells  either 
of  a  recovery  from  a  fever,  or  of  sufferings  during  a  re 
cent  one,  or  apprehensions  of  a  new  one  and  from  these 
harassing  visitations  no  one  was  exempt.  In  a  letter  of 
October  26  we  read: 

We  have  all  been  sick  this  fall  and  this  whole  region  of 
country  has  been  more  sickly  than  ever  before  known.  George 
and  myself  both  had  attacks  of  bilious  fever  early  in  September 
which  lasted  about  ten  days.  Since  then  Julia  has  had  two 
attacks,  the  last  of  which  was  quite  severe  and  confined  her  to 
the  room  nearly  two  weeks.  I  also  have  had  a  severe  attack 
about  three  weeks  since,  but  it  was  slight.  When  I  was  sick  we 
sent  over  to  St.  Louis  for  Dr.  Tiffany,  and  by  some  means  the 
news  of  our  sending  there,  accompanied  by  a  report  that  I  was 


18  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

much  worse  than  was  really  the  case,  reached  Springfield,  and 
Dr.  and  Mrs.  Jayne  came  down  post  haste  in  about  a  day  and  a 
half.  When  they  got  here,  I  was  downstairs.  They  only  staid 
overnight  and  started  back  the  next  morning.  They  had  heard 
that  I  was  not  expected  to  live. 

In  February,  1846,  when  Trumbull  was  in  his  thirty- 
third  year,  his  friends  presented  his  name  to  the  Demo 
cratic  State  Convention  for  the  office  of  governor  of  the 
state.  A  letter  to  his  father  gives  the  details  of  the  bal 
loting  in  the  convention.  Six  candidates  were  voted  for. 
On  the  first  ballot  he  received  56  votes;  the  next  highest 
candidate,  Augustus  C.  French,  had  47;  and  the  third, 
John  Calhoun,  had  44.  The  historian,  John  Moses,  says 
that  "the  choice,  in  accordance  with  a  line  of  precedents 
which  seemed  almost  to  indicate  a  settled  policy,  fell  upon 
him  who  had  achieved  least  prominence  as  a  party 
leader,  and  whose  record  had  been  least  conspicuous  — 
Augustus  C.  French." 

A  letter  from  Trumbull  to  his  father  says  that  his 
defeat  was  due  to  the  influence  of  Governor  Ford,  whose 
first  choice  was  Calhoun,  but  who  turned  his  following 
over  to  French  in  order  to  defeat  Trumbull.  French  was 
elected,  and  made  a  respectable  governor.  Calhoun  sub 
sequently  went,  in  an  official  capacity,  to  Kansas,  where 
he  became  noted  as  the  chief  ballot-box  stuff er  of  the  pro- 
slavery  party  in  the  exciting  events  of  1856-58. 

A  letter  from  Mrs.  Trumbull  to  her  father-in-law, 
May  4, 1846,  mentions  the  birth  of  a  second  son  (Walter), 
then  two  and  a  half  months  old.  It  informs  him  also  that 
her  husband  has  been  nominated  for  Congress  by  the 
Democrats  of  the  First  District,  the  vote  in  the  conven 
tion  being,  Lyman  Trumbull,  24;  John  Dougherty,  5; 
Robert  Smith,  8.  The  political  issues  in  this  campaign  are 
obscure,  but  the  result  of  the  election  was  again  adverse. 


ANCESTRY  AND  EARLY  LIFE  19 

The  supporters  of  Robert  Smith  nominated  him  as  a 
bolting  candidate;  the  Whigs  made  no  nomination,  but 
supported  Smith,  who  was  elected. 

A  letter  written  by  Mrs.  Trumbull  at  Springfield, 
December  16, 1846,  mentions  the  first  election  of  Stephen 
A.  Douglas  as  United  States  Senator.  "A  party  is  to  be 
given  in  his  name,"  she  says,  "at  the  State  House  on 
Friday  evening  under  the  direction  of  Messrs.  Webster 
and  Hickox.  The  tickets  come  in  beautiful  envelopes, 
and  I  understand  that  Douglas  has  authorized  the  gentle 
men  to  expend  $50  in  music,  and  directed  the  most  splen 
did  entertainment  that  was  ever  prepared  in  Springfield." 

A  letter  to  Benjamin  Trumbull,  Sr.,  from  his  son  of 
the  same  name,  who  was  cultivating  a  small  farm  near 
Springfield,  gives  another  glimpse  of  the  family  health 
record,  saying  that  "both  Lyman  and  George  have  had 
chills  and  fever  two  or  three  days  this  spring";  also,  that 
"Lyman's  child  was  feeble  in  consequence  of  the  same 
malady;  and  that  he  [Benjamin]  has  been  sick  so  much  of 
the  time  that  he  could  not  do  his  Spring  planting  without 
hired  help,  for  which  Lyman  had  generously  contributed 
$20,  and  offered  more." 

May  13,  1847,  Trumbull  writes  to  his  father  that  he 
intends  to  go  with  his  family  and  make  the  latter  a  visit 
for  the  purpose  of  seeing  the  members  of  the  family  in 
Michigan;  also  in  the  hope  of  escaping  the  periodical 
sickness  which  has  afflicted  himself  and  wife  and  little 
boy,  and  almost  every  one  in  Belleville,  during  several 
seasons  past.  As  this  periodical  sickness  was  chills  and 
fever,  we  may  assume  that  it  was  due  to  the  prevalence  of 
mosquitoes,  of  the  variety  anopheles.  Half  a  century  was 
still  to  pass  ere  medical  science  made  this  discovery,  and 
delivered  civilized  society  from  the  scourge  called 
"malaria." 


20  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

The  journey  to  Michigan  was  made.  An  account 
(dated  Springfield,  August  1,  1847)  of  the  return  journey 
is  interesting  by  way  of  contrast  with  the  facilities  for 
traveling  existing  at  the  present  time. 

We  left  Cassopolis  Monday  about  ten  o'clock  and  came  the 
first  48  miles,  which  brought  us  to  within  five  miles  of  La  Porte. 
The  second  night  we  passed  at  Battstown  45  miles  on  the  road 
from  La  Porte  towards  Joliet.  The  third  night  we  passed  at 
Joliet,  distance  40  miles.  The  fourth  night  we  passed  at 
Pontiac,  having  traveled  60  miles  to  get  to  a  stopping  place, 
and  finding  but  a  poor  one  at  that.  The  fifth  night  we  were  at 
Bloomington,  distance  40  miles.  The  sixth  day  we  traveled  43 
miles  and  to  within  18  miles  of  this  place ;  the  route  we  came  from 
Cassopolis  to  Springfield  is  294  miles,  and  from  Brother  David's 
about  386  miles.  Our  expenses  for  tavern  bills  from  David's  to 
this  place  were  $17.75.  Pretty  cheap,  I  think. 

Among  other  items  of  interest  it  may  be  noted  that  the 
rate  of  postage  had  been  reduced  to  ten  cents  per  letter, 
but  stamps  had  not  yet  come  into  use.  The  earnings  of 
the  Trumbull  law  firm  (Lyman  and  George)  for  the  year 
1847  were  $2300. 

In  1847,  a  new  constitution  was  adopted  by  the  state  of 
Illinois  which  reduced  the  number  of  judges  of  the  su 
preme  court  from  nine  to  three.  The  state  was  divided 
into  three  grand  divisions,  or  districts,  each  to  select  one 
member  of  the  court.  After  the  first  election  one  of  the 
judges  was  to  serve  three  years,  one  six  years,  and  one 
nine  years,  at  a  compensation  of  $1200  per  year  each. 
These  terms  were  to  be  decided  by  lot,  and  thereafter  the 
term  of  each  judge  should  be  nine  years.  Trumbull  was 
elected  judge  for  the  first  or  southern  division  in  1848. 
His  colleagues,  chosen  at  the  same  time,  were  Samuel  H. 
Treat  and  John  D.  Caton.  He  drew  the  three  years' 
term. 

In  the  year  1849,  Trumbull  bought  a  brick  house  and 


ANCESTRY  AND  EARLY  LIFE  21 

three  acres  of  ground,  with  an  orchard  of  fruit-bearing 
trees,  in  the  town  of  Alton,  Madison  County,  and  re 
moved  thither  with  his  family.  In  announcing  this  fact  to 
his  father  the  only  reason  he  assigns  for  his  change  of  resi 
dence  is  that  the  inhabitants  of  Alton  are  mostly  from  the 
Eastern  States.  Its  population  at  that  time  was  about 
3000;  that  of  Upper  Alton,  three  miles  distant,  was  1000. 
The  cost  of  house  and  ground,  with  some  additions  and 
improvements,  was  $2500,  all  of  which  was  paid  in  cash 
out  of  his  savings.  Incidentally  he  remarks  that  he  has 
never  borrowed  money,  never  been  in  debt,  never  signed  a 
promissory  note,  and  that  he  hopes  to  pass  through  life 
without  incurring  pecuniary  liabilities.1 

From  the  tone  of  the  letter  in  which  his  change  of  resi 
dence  is  announced,  the  inference  is  drawn  that  Trumbull 
had  abandoned  his  law  practice  at  Belleville  with  the 
expectation  of  remaining  on  the  bench  for  an  indefinite 
period.  He  accepted  a  reelection  as  judge  in  1852  for  a 
term  of  nine  years,  yet  he  resigned  a  year  and  a  half  later 
because  the  salary  was  insufficient  to  support  his  family. 
Walter  B.  Scates  was  chosen  as  his  successor  on  the 
supreme  bench.  Nearly  forty-five  years  later,  Chief 
Justice  Mag  ruder,  of  the  Illinois  supreme  court,  an 
swering  John  M.  Palmer's  address  presenting  the  memo 
rial  of  the  Chicago  Bar  Association  on  the  life  and 
services  of  Trumbull,  recently  deceased,  said  that  no 
lawyer  could  read  the  opinions  handed  down  by  the  dead 
statesman  when  on  the  bench,  "without  being  satisfied 


1  Mr.  Morris  St.  P.  Thomas,  a  close  friend  of  Trumbull  in  his  latter  years,  a 
member  of  his  law  office,  and  administrator  of  his  estate,  made  the  following 
statement  in  an  interview  given  at  107  Dearborn  Street,  Chicago,  June  13, 
1910:  "Judge  Trumbull  once  told  me  that  he  had  never  in  his  life  given  a 
promissory  note.  '  But  you  do  not  mean,'  said  I, '  that  in  every  purchase  of  real 
estate  you  ever  made  you  paid  cash  down!'  'I  do  mean  just  that,'  the  Judge 
replied.  '  I  never  in  my  life  gave  a  promissory  note.'  " 


22  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

that  the  writer  of  them  was  an  able,  industrious,  and  fair- 
minded  judge.  All  his  judicial  utterances  .  .  .  are  char 
acterized  by  clearness  of  expression,  accuracy  of  state 
ment,  and  strength  of  reasoning.  They  breathe  a  spirit 
of  reverence  for  the  standard  authorities  and  abound  in 
copious  reference  to  those  authorities.  .  .  .  The  decisions 
of  the  court,  when  he  spoke  as  its  organ,  are  to-day 
regarded  as  among  the  most  reliable  of  its  established 
precedents." 


CHAPTER  II 

SLAVERY   IN   ILLINOIS 

WHEN  the  territory  comprising  the  state  of  Illinois 
passed  under  control  of  the  United  States,  negro  slavery 
existed  in  the  French  villages  situated  on  the  so-called 
American  Bottom,  a  strip  of  fertile  land  extending  along 
the  east  bank  of  the  Mississippi  River  from  Cahokia  on 
the  north  to  Kaskaskia  on  the  south,  embracing  the 
present  counties  of  St.  Clair,  Monroe,  and  Randolph. 
The  first  European  settlements  had  been  made  here  about 
1718,  by  colonists  coming  up  the  great  river  from  Louisi 
ana,  under  the  auspices  of  John  Law's  Company  of  the 
Indies. 

The  earlier  occupation  of  the  country  by  French 
explorers  and  Jesuit  priests  from  Canada  had  been  in  the 
nature  of  fur-trading  and  religious  propagandism,  rather 
than  permanent  colonies,  although  marriages  had  been 
solemnized  in  due  form  between  French  men  and  Indian 
women,  and  a  considerable  number  of  half-breed  children 
had  been  born.  Five  hundred  negro  slaves  from  Santo 
Domingo  were  sent  up  the  river  in  1718,  to  work  any  gold 
and  silver  mines  that  might  be  found  in  the  Illinois  country. 
In  fact,  slavery  of  red  men  existed  there  to  some  extent, 
before  the  Africans  arrived,  the  slaves  being  captives 
taken  in  war. 

In  1784-85,  Thomas  Jefferson  induced  Rev.  James 
Lemen,  of  Harper's  Ferry,  Virginia,  to  migrate  to 
Illinois  in  order  to  organize  opposition  to  slavery  in  the 
Northwest  Territory  and  supplied  him  with  money  for 
that  purpose.  Mr.  Lemen  came  to  Illinois  in  1786  and  set- 


24  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

tied  in  what  is  now  Monroe  County.  He  was  the  founder 
of  the  first  eight  Baptist  churches  in  Illinois,  all  of  which 
were  pledged  to  oppose  the  doctrine  and  practice  of 
slavery.  Governor  William  H.  Harrison  having  for 
warded  petitions  to  Congress  to  allow  slavery  in  the 
Northwest  Territory,  Jefferson  wrote  to  Lemen  to  go,  or 
send  an  agent,  to  Indiana,  to  get  petitions  signed  in  oppo 
sition  to  Harrison.  Lemen  did  so.  A  letter  of  Lemen, 
dated  Harper's  Ferry,  December  11,  1782,  says  that 
Jefferson  then  had  the  purpose  to  dedicate  the  North 
west  Territory  to  freedom.1 

In  1787,  Congress  passed  an  ordinance  for  the  govern 
ment  of  the  territory  northwest  of  the  river  Ohio  which 
had  been  ceded  to  the  United  States  by  Virginia.  The 
sixth  article  of  this  ordinance  prohibited  slavery  in  said 
territory.  Inasmuch  as  the  rights  of  persons  and  property 
had  been  guaranteed  by  treaties  when  this  region  had 
passed  from  France  to  Great  Britain  and  later  to  the 
United  States,  this  article  was  generally  construed  as 
meaning  that  no  more  slaves  should  be  introduced,  and 
that  all  children  born  after  the  passage  of  the  ordinance 
should  be  free,  but  that  slaves  held  there  prior  to  1787 
should  continue  in  bondage. 

Immigration  was  mainly  from  the  Southern  States. 
Some  of  the  immigrants  brought  slaves  with  them,  and 
the  territorial  legislature  passed  an  act  in  1812  authoriz 
ing  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  under  other  names. 
It  declared  that  it  should  be  lawful  for  owners  of  negroes 
above  fifteen  years  of  age  to  take  them  before  the  clerk  of 
the  court  of  common  pleas,  and  if  a  negro  should  agree  to 
serve  for  a  specified  term  of  years,  the  clerk  should  record 
him  or  her  as  an  "indentured  servant."  If  the  negro  was 

1  These  facts  are  detailed  in  a  paper  contributed  to  the  Illinois  State  Histori 
cal  Society  in  1908  by  Joseph  B.  Lemen,  of  OTallon,  Illinois. 


SLAVERY  IN  ILLINOIS  25 

under  the  age  of  fifteen,  the  owner  might  hold  him  with 
out  an  agreement  till  the  age  of  thirty-five  if  male,  or 
thirty-two  if  female.  Children  born  of  negroes  owing 
service  by  indenture  should  serve  till  the  age  of  thirty 
if  male,  and  till  twenty-eight  if  female.  This  was  a  plain 
violation  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  and  was  a  glaring 
fraud  in  other  respects.  The  negroes  generally  did  not 
understand  what  they  were  agreeing  to,  and  in  cases 
where  they  did  not  agree  the  probable  alternative  was  a 
sale  to  somebody  in  an  adjoining  slave  state,  so  that  they 
really  had  no  choice.  The  state  constitution,  adopted  in 
1818,  prohibited  slavery,  but  recognized  the  indenture 
system  by  providing  that  male  children  born  of  inden 
tured  servants  should  be  free  at  the  age  of  twenty-one  and 
females  at  the  age  of  eighteen.  The  upshot  of  the  matter 
was  that  there  was  just  enough  of  the  virus  of  slavery  left 
to  keep  the  caldron  bubbling  there  for  two  generations 
after  1787,  although  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation 
supposed  that  they  had  then  made  an  end  of  it. 

This  arrangement  did  not  satisfy  either  the  incom 
ing  slave-owners  or  those  already  domiciled  there.  Per 
sistent  attempts  were  made  while  the  country  was  still 
under  territorial  government,  to  procure  from  Congress  a 
repeal  of  the  sixth  article  of  the  Ordinance,  but  they  were 
defeated  chiefly  by  the  opposition  of  John  Randolph,  of 
Roanoke,  Virginia.  After  the  state  was  admitted  to  the 
Union,  the  pro-slavery  faction  renewed  their  efforts.  They 
insisted  that  Illinois  had  all  the  rights  of  the  other  states, 
and  could  lawfully  introduce  slavery  by  changing  the 
constitution.  They  proposed,  therefore,  to  call  a  new  con 
vention  for  this  purpose.  To  do  so  would  require  a  two- 
thirds  vote  of  both  branches  of  the  legislature,  and  a 
majority  vote  of  the  people  at  the  next  regular  election. 
A  bill  for  this  purpose  was  passed  in  the  Senate  by  the 


26  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

requisite  majority,  but  it  lacked  one  vote  in  the  House. 
To  obtain  this  vote  a  member  who  had  been  elected  and 
confirmed  in  his  seat  after  a  contest,  and  had  occupied  it 
for  ten  weeks,  was  unseated,  and  the  contestant  previ 
ously  rejected  was  put  in  his  place  and  gave  the  necessary 
vote.  Reynolds,  who  was  himself  a  convention  man,  says 
that  "this  outrage  was  a  death-blow  to  the  convention." 
He  continues: 

The  convention  question  gave  rise  to  two  years  of  the  most 
furious  and  boisterous  excitement  that  ever  was  visited  on 
Illinois.  Men,  women,  and  children  entered  the  arena  of  party 
warfare  and  strife,  and  families  and  neighborhoods  were  so 
divided  and  furious  and  bitter  against  one  another  that  it 
seemed  a  regular  civil  war  might  be  the  result.  Many  personal 
combats  were  indulged  in  on  the  question,  and  the  whole  coun 
try  seemed  to  be,  at  times,  ready  and  willing  to  resort  to  physi 
cal  force  to  decide  the  contest.  All  the  means  known  to  man  to 
convey  ideas  to  one  another  were  resorted  to  and  practiced  with 
energy.  The  press  teemed  with  publications  on  the  subject. 
The  stump  orators  were  invoked,  and  the  pulpit  thundered 
with  anathemas  against  the  introduction  of  slavery.  The  relig 
ious  community  coupled  freedom  and  Christianity  together, 
which  was  one  of  the  most  powerful  levers  used  in  the  con 
test. 

At  this  time  all  the  frontier  communities  were  anxious 
to  gain  additions  to  their  population.  Immigration  was 
eagerly  sought.  The  arrivals  were  mostly  from  the 
Southern  States,  the  main  channels  of  communication 
being  the  converging  rivers  Ohio,  Mississippi,  Cumber 
land,  and  Tennessee.  Many  of  these  brought  slaves,  and 
since  there  was  no  security  for  such  property  in  Illinois, 
they  went  onward  to  Missouri.  One  of  the  strongest 
arguments  used  by  the  convention  party  was,  that  if 
slavery  were  permitted,  this  tide  of  immigration  would 
pour  a  stream  of  wealth  into  Illinois. 


SLAVERY  IN  ILLINOIS  27 

Most  of  the  political  leaders  and  office-holders  were 
convention  men,  but  there  were  some  notable  exceptions, 
among  whom  were  Edward  Coles,  governor  of  the  state, 
and  Daniel  P.  Cook,  Representative  in  Congress,  the 
former  a  native  of  Virginia,  and  the  latter  of  Kentucky. 
Governor  Coles  was  one  of  the  Virginia  abolitionists  of 
early  days,  who  had  emancipated  his  own  slaves  and 
given  them  lands  on  which  to  earn  their  living.  The 
governor  gave  the  entire  salary  of  his  term  of  office 
($4000)  for  the  expenses  of  the  anti-convention  contest, 
and  his  unceasing  personal  efforts  as  a  speaker  and 
organizer.  Mr.  Cook  was  a  brilliant  lawyer  and  orator, 
and  the  sole  Representative  of  Illinois  in  Congress,  where 
he  was  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means, 
and  where  he  cast  the  vote  of  Illinois  for  J.  Q.  Adams  for 
President  in  1824.  Cook  County,  which  contains  the  city 
of  Chicago,  takes  its  name  from  him.  He  was  indefatiga 
ble  on  the  side  of  freedom  in  this  campaign.  Another 
powerful  reinforcement  was  found  in  the  person  of  Rev. 
John  M.  Peck,  a  Baptist  preacher  who  went  through  the 
state  like  John  the  Baptist  crying  in  the  wilderness.  He 
made  impassioned  speeches,  formed  anti-slavery  socie 
ties,  distributed,  tracts,  raised  money,  held  prayer- 
meetings,  addressed  Sunday  Schools,  and  organized  the 
religious  sentiment  of  the  state  for  freedom.  He  was  ably 
seconded  by  Hooper  Warren,  editor  of  the  Edwardsville 
Spectator.  The  election  took  place  August  2,  1824,  and 
the  vote  was  4972  for  the  convention,  and  6640  against  it. 
In  the  counties  of  St.  Clair  and  Randolph,  which  em 
braced  the  bulk  of  the  French  population,  the  vote  was 
almost  equally  divided  —  765  for;  790  against, 

In  18.50,  both  Henry  Clay  and  Daniel  Webster  con 
tended  that  Nature  had  interposed  a  law  stronger  than 
any  law  of  Congress  against  the  introduction  of  slavery 


28  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

into  the  territory  north  of  Texas  which  we  had  lately 
acquired  from  Mexico.  From  the  foregoing  facts,  how 
ever,  it  is  clear  that  no  law  of  Nature  prevented  Illinois 
from  becoming  a  slaveholding  state,  but  only  the  fiercest 
kind  of  political  fighting  and  internal  resistance.  John 
Reynolds  (and  there  was  no  better  judge)  said  in  1854: 
"I  never  had  any  doubt  that  slavery  would  now  exist  in 
Illinois  if  it  had  not  been  prevented  by  the  famous  Ordi 
nance"  of  1787.  The  law  of  human  greed  would  have 
overcome  every  other  law,  including  that  of  Congress, 
but  for  the  magnificent  work  of  Edward  Coles,  Daniel  P. 
Cook,  John  Mason  Peck,  Hooper  Warren,  and  their 
coadjutors  in  1824. 

The  snake  was  scotched,  not  killed,  by  this  election. 
There  were  no  more  attempts  to  legalize  slavery  by  po 
litical  agency,  but  persevering  efforts  were  made  to  per 
petuate  it  by  judicial  decisions  resting  upon  old  French 
law  and  the  Territorial  Indenture  Act  of  1812.  Frequent 
law  suits  were  brought  by  negroes,  who  claimed  the  right 
of  freedom  on  the  ground  that  their  period  of  indenture 
had  expired,  or  that  they  had  never  signed  an  indenture, 
or  that  they  had  been  born  free,  or  that  their  masters  had 
brought  them  into  Illinois  after  the  state  constitution, 
which  prohibited  slavery,  had  been  adopted.  In  this 
litigation  Trumbull  was  frequently  engaged  on  the  side  of 
the  colored  people. 

In  1842,  a  colored  woman  named  Sarah  Borders,  with 
three  children,  who  was  held  under  the  indenture  law  by 
one  Andrew  Borders  in  Randolph  County,  escaped  and 
made  her  way  north  as  far  as  Peoria  County.  She  and  her 
children  were  there  arrested  and  confined  in  a  jail  as  fugi 
tive  slaves.  They  were  brought  before  a  justice  of  the 
peace,  who  decided  that  they  were  illegally  detained  and 
were  entitled  to  their  freedom.  An  appeal  was  taken  by 


SLAVERY  IN  ILLINOIS  29 

Borders  to  the  county  court,  which  reversed  the  action 
of  the  justice.  The  case  eventually  went  to  the  supreme 
court,  where  Lyman  Trumbull  and  Gustave  Koerner 
appeared  for  the  negro  woman  in  December,  1843,  and 
argued  that  slavery  was  unlawful  in  Illinois  and  had  been 
so  ever  since  the  enactment  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787. 
The  court  decided  against  them.1 

Trumbull  was  not  discouraged  by  the  decision  in  this 
case.  Shortly  afterward  he  appeared  before  the  supreme 
court  again  in  the  case  of  Jarrot  vs.  Jarrot,  in  which  he 
won  a  victory  which  practically  put  an  end  to  slavery  in 
the  state.  Joseph  Jarrot,  a  negro,  sued  his  mistress,  Julia 
Jarrot,  for  wages,  alleging  that  he  had  been  held  in  servi 
tude  contrary  to  law.  The  plaintiff's  grandmother  had 
been  the  slave  of  a  Frenchman  in  the  Illinois  country 
before  it  passed  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States.  His  mother  and  himself  had  passed  by  descent  to 
Julia  Jarrot,  nobody  objecting.  Fifty-seven  years  had 
elapsed  since  the  passage  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787  and 
twenty-six  since  the  adoption  of  the  state  constitution, 
both  of  which  had  prohibited  slavery  in  Illinois.  The  pre 
vious  decisions  in  the  court  of  last  resort  had  generally 
sustained  the  claims  of  the  owners  of  slaves  held  under 
the  French  regime  and  their  descendants,  and  also  those 
held  under  the  so-called  indenture  system.  Now,  how 
ever,  the  court  swept  away  the  whole  basis  of  slavery  in 
the  state,  of  whatever  kind  or  description,  declaring,  as 
Trumbull  had  previously  contended,  that  the  Congress  of 
the  Confederation  had  full  power  to  pass  the  Ordinance  of 
1787,  that  no  person  born  since  that  date  could  be  held  as 
a  slave  in  Illinois,  and  that  any  slave  brought  into  the 
state  by  his  master,  or  with  the  master's  consent,  since 
that  date  became  at  once  free.  It  followed  that  such  per- 

1  Negro  Servitude  in  Illinois,  by  N.  Dwight  Harris,  p.  108. 


SO  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

sons  could  sue  and  recover  wages  for  labor  performed 
under  compulsion,  as  Joseph  Jarrot  did. 

This  decision,  which  abolished  slavery  in  Illinois  de 
facto,  was  received  with  great  satisfaction  by  the  sub 
stantial  and  sober-minded  citizens.  Although  the  num 
ber  of  aggressive  anti-slavery  men  in  the  state  was  small 
and  of  out-and-out  abolitionists  still  smaller,  there  was  a 
widespread  belief  that  the  lingering  snaky  presence  of  the 
institution  was  a  menace  to  the  public  peace  and  a  blot 
upon  the  fair  fame  of  the  state,  and  that  it  ought  to  be 
expunged  once  for  all.  The  growth  of  public  opinion  was 
undoubtedly  potent  in  the  minds  of  the  judges,  but  the 
untiring  activity  of  the  leading  advocates  in  the  cases  of 
Borders,  Jarrot,  etc.,  should  not  be  overlooked.  On  this 
subject  Mr.  Dwight  Harris,  in  the  book  already  cited, 
says: 

The  period  of  greatest  struggle  and  of  greatest  triumph  for 
the  anti-slavery  advocates  was  that  from  1840  to  1845.  The 
contest  during  these  five  years  was  serious  and  stubbornly  car 
ried  on.  It  involved  talent,  ingenuity,  determination,  and  perse 
verance  on  both  sides.  The  abolitionists  are  to  be  accredited 
with  stirring  up  considerable  interest  over  the  state  in  some 
of  the  cases.  Southern  sympathizers  and  the  holders  of  inden 
tured  servants  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  state  were 
naturally  considerably  concerned  in  the  decisions  of  the  supreme 
court.  Still  there  seems  to  have  been  no  widespread  interest  or 
universal  agitation  in  the  state  over  this  contest  in  the  courts. 
It  was  carried  on  chiefly  through  the  benevolence  of  a  com 
paratively  small  number  of  citizens  who  were  actuated  by  a 
firm  belief  in  the  evils  of  slavery;  while  the  brunt  of  the  fray 
fell  to  a  few  able  and  devoted  lawyers. 

Among  these  were  G.  T.  M.  Davis,  of  Alton,  Nathaniel 
Niles,  of  Belleville,  Gustave  Koerner,  of  Belleville,  and  Lyman 
Trumbull.  James  H.  Collins,  a  noted  abolition  lawyer  of 
Chicago,  should  also  be  highly  praised  for  his  work  in  the  Love- 
joy  and  Willard  cases,  but  to  the  other  men  the  real  victory  is 
to  be  ascribed.  They  were  the  most  powerful  friends  of  the 


SLAVERY  IN  ILLINOIS  31 

negro,  and  lived  where  their  assistance  could  be  readily  secured. 
They  told  the  negroes  repeatedly  that  they  were  free,  urged 
them  to  leave  their  masters,  and  fought  their  cases  in  the  lower 
courts  time  and  time  again,  often  without  fees  or  remuneration. 
Chief  among  them  was  Lyman  Trumbull,  whose  name  should 
be  written  large  in  anti-slavery  annals. 

He  was  a  lawyer  of  rare  intellectual  endowments,  and  of 
great  ability.  He  had  few  equals  before  the  bar  in  his  day.  In 
politics  he  was  an  old-time  Democrat,  with  no  leanings  toward 
abolitionism,  but  possessing  an  honest  desire  to  see  justice  done 
the  negro  in  Illinois.  It  was  a  thankless  task,  in  those  days  of 
prejudice  and  bitter  partisan  feelings,  to  assume  the  role  of 
defender  of  the  indentured  slaves.  It  was  not  often  unattended 
with  great  risk  to  one's  person,  as  well  as  to  one's  reputation 
and  business.  But  Trumbull  did  not  hesitate  to  undertake  the 
task,  thankless,  discouraging,  unremunerative  as  it  was,  and 
to  his  zeal,  courage,  and  perseverance,  as  well  as  to  his  ability, 
is  to  be  ascribed  the  ultimate  success  of  the  appeal  to  the 
supreme  court. 

This  disinterested  and  able  effort,  made  in  all  sincerity  of 
purpose,  and  void  of  all  appearance  of  self -elevation,  rendered 
him  justly  popular  throughout  the  State,  as  well  as  in  the  region 
of  his  home.  The  people  of  his  district  showed  their  approval  of 
his  work  and  their  confidence  in  his  integrity  by  electing  him 
judge  of  the  supreme  court  in  1848,  and  Congressman  from  the 
Eighth  District  of  Illinois  by  a  handsome  majority  in  1854, 
when  it  was  well  known  that  he  was  opposed  to  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill. 


CHAPTER  III 

FIRST   ELECTION  AS  SENATOR 

THE  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  the  cause 
of  Trumbull's  return  to  an  active  participation  in  politics. 
The  prime  mover  in  that  disastrous  adventure  was 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  who  had  been  Trumbuirs  prede 
cessor  in  the  office  of  secretary  of  state  and  also  one  of  his 
predecessors  on  the  supreme  bench.  He  was  now  a 
Senator  of  the  United  States,  and  a  man  of  world-wide 
celebrity.  Born  at  Brandon,  Vermont,  in  1813,  he  had 
lost  his  father  before  he  was  a  year  old.  His  mother 
removed  with  him  to  Canandaigua,  New  York,  where  he 
attended  an  academy  and  read  law  to  some  extent  in  the 
office  of  a  local  practitioner.  At  the  age  of  twenty,  he  set 
out  for  the  West  to  seek  his  fortune,  and  he  found  the 
beginnings  of  it  at  Winchester,  Illinois,  where  he  taught 
school  for  a  living  and  continued  to  study  law,  as  Trum- 
bull  was  doing  at  the  same  time  at  Greenville,  Georgia. 
He  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1834.  In  1835,  he  was 
elected  state's  attorney.  Two  years  later  he  was  elected 
a  member  of  the  legislature  by  the  Democrats  of  Morgan 
County,  and  resigned  the  office  he  then  held  in  order  to 
take  the  new  one.  In  1837,  he  was  appointed  by  Presi 
dent  Van  Buren  register  of  the  land  office  at  Springfield. 
In  the  same  year  he  was  nominated  for  Congress  in  the 
Springfield  district  before  he  had  reached  the  legal  age, 
but  was  defeated  by  the  Whig  candidate,  John  T. 
Stuart,  by  35  votes  in  a  total  poll  of  36,742. 1  In  1840,  he 

1  The  Journal  of  the  Illinois  State  Historical  Society  for  October,  1912,  con 
tains  an  autobiography  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  of  fifteen  pages,  dated  Septem- 


FIRST  ELECTION  AS  SENATOR  33 

was  appointed  secretary  of  state,  and  in  1841,  elected 
a  judge  of  the  supreme  court  under  the  circumstances 
already  mentioned.  In  1843,  he  was  elected  to  the  lower 
house  of  Congress  and  was  reelected  twice,  but  before 
taking  his  seat  the  third  time  he  was  chosen  by  the  legis 
lature,  in  1846,  Senator  of  the  United  States  for  the  term 
beginning  March  4,  1847,  and  was  reelected  in  1852.  In 
Congress  he  had  taken  an  active  part  in  the  annexation 
of  Texas,  in  the  war  with  Mexico,  in  the  Oregon  Bound 
ary  dispute,  and  in  the  Land  Grant  for  the  Illinois  Cen 
tral  Railway.  In  the  Senate  he  held  the  position  of  Chair 
man  of  the  Committee  on  Territories. 

In  the  Democratic  party  he  had  forged  to  the  front 
by  virtue  of  boldness  in  leadership,  untiring  industry, 
boundless  ambition,  and  self-confidence,  and  horse 
power.  He  had  a  large  head  surmounted  by  an  abundant 
mane,  which  gave  him  the  appearance  of  a  lion  prepared 
to  roar  or  to  crush  his  prey,  and  not  seldom  the  resem 
blance  was  confirmed  when  he  opened  his  mouth  on  the 
hustings  or  in  the  Senate  Chamber.  As  stump  orator, 
senatorial  debater,  and  party  manager  he  never  had  a 
superior  in  this  country.  Added  to  these  gifts,  he  had 
a  very  attractive  personality  and  a  wonderful  gift  for 
divining  and  anticipating  the  drift  of  public  opinion.  The 
one  thing  lacking  to  make  him  a  man  "not  for  an  age  but 
for  all  time,"  was  a  moral  substratum.  He  was  essen 
tially  an  opportunist.  Although  his  private  life  was  un 
stained,  he  had  no  conception  of  morals  in  politics,  and 
this  defect  was  his  undoing  as  a  statesman. 

On  the  4th  of  January,  1854,  Douglas  reported  from 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Territories  a  bill  to  organize  the 

her,  1838,  which  was  recently  found  in  his  own  handwriting  by  his  son,  Hon. 
Robert  M.  Douglas,  of  North  Carolina.  It  terminates  just  before  his  first 
campaign  for  Congress. 


34  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

territory  of  Nebraska.  It  provided  that  said  territory,  or 
any  portion  of  it,  when  admitted  as  a  state  or  states, 
should  be  received  into  the  Union  with  or  without 
slavery,  as  their  constitution  might  prescribe  at  the  time 
of  their  admission.  The  Missouri  Compromise  Act  of 
1820,  which  applied  to  this  territory,  was  not  repealed  by 
this  provision,  and  it  must  have  been  plain  to  everybody 
that  if  slavery  were  excluded  from  the  territory  it  would 
not  be  there  when  the  people  should  come  together  to 
form  a  state. 

Douglas  did  not  at  first  propose  to  repeal  the  Missouri 
Compromise.  He  intended  to  leave  the  question  of 
slavery  untouched.  He  did  not  want  to  reopen  the  agita 
tion,  which  had  been  mostly  quieted  by  the  Compromise 
of  1850;  but  it  soon  became  evident  that  if  he  were  willing 
to  leave  the  question  in  doubt,  others  were  not.  Dixon, 
of  Kentucky,  successor  of  Henry  Clay  in  the  Senate 
and  a  Whig  in  politics,  offered  an  amendment  to  the  bill 
proposing  to  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise  outright. 
Douglas  was  rather  startled  when  this  motion  was  made. 
He  went  to  Dixon's  seat  and  begged  him  to  withdraw  his 
amendment,  urging  that  it  would  reopen  the  contro 
versies  settled  by  the  Compromise  of  1850  and  delay,  if 
not  prevent,  the  passage  of  any  bill  to  organize  the  new 
territory.  Dixon  was  stubborn.  He  contended  that  the 
Southern  people  had  a  right  to  go  into  the  new  territory 
equally  with  those  of  the  North,  and  to  take  with  them 
anything  that  was  recognized  and  protected  as  property 
in  the  Southern  States.  Dixon's  motion  received  imme 
diate  and  warm  support  in  the  South. 

Two  or  three  days  later,  Douglas  decided  to  embody 
Dixon's  amendment  in  his  bill  and  take  the  conse 
quences.  His  amended  bill  divided  the  territory  in  two 
parts,  Kansas  and  Nebraska.  The  apparent  object  of 


FIRST  ELECTION  AS  SENATOR  35 

this  change  was  to  give  the  Missourians  a  chance  to  make 
the  southernmost  one  a  slave  state;  but  this  intention  has 
been  controverted  by  Douglas's  friends  in  recent  years, 
who  have  brought  forward  a  mass  of  evidence  to  show  that 
he  had  other  sufficient  reasons  for  thus  dividing  the  ter 
ritory  and  hence  that  it  must  not  be  assumed  that  he 
intended  that  one  of  them  should  be  a  slave  state.  The 
evidence  consists  of  a  record  of  efforts  put  forth  by  citi 
zens  of  western  Iowa  in  1853-54  to  secure  a  future  state 
on  the  opposite  side  of  the  Missouri  River  homogeneous 
with  themselves,  and  to  promote  the  building  of  a  Pacific 
railway  from  some  point  near  Council  Bluffs  along  the 
line  of  the  Platte  River.  These  efforts  were  heartily 
seconded  by  Senators  Dodge  and  Jones  and  Representa 
tive  Henn,  of  Iowa.  They  labored  with  Douglas  and 
secured  his  cooperation.  So  Douglas  himself  said  when  he 
announced  the  change  in  the  bill  dividing  the  territory 
into  two  parts. 

Most  people  at  the  present  day,  including  myself, 
would  be  glad  to  concur  with  this  view,  but  we  must 
interpret  Douglas's  acts  not  merely  by  what  he  said  in 
1854,  but  also  by  what  he  said  and  did  afterwards.  In 
1856  he  made  an  unjustifiable  assault  upon  the  New 
England  Emigrant  Aid  Company,  for  sending  settlers  to 
Kansas,  as  they  had  a  perfect  right  to  do  under  the  terms 
of  the  bill;  and  he  apologized  for,  if  he  did  not  actually 
defend,  the  Missourian  invaders  who  marched  over  the 
border  in  military  array,  took  possession  of  the  ballot 
boxes,  elected  a  pro-slavery  legislature,  and  then  marched 
back  boasting  of  their  victory.  Troubles  multiplied  in 
Douglas's  pathway  rapidly  after  he  introduced  his 
Nebraska  Bill,  and  it  is  very  likely  that  an  equal  division 
of  the  territory  between  the  North  and  South  seemed  to 
him  the  safest  way  out  of  his  difficulties.  That  was  the 


36  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

customary  way  of  settling  disputes  of  this  kind.  We  need 
not  assume,  however,  that  he  intended  to  do  more  than 
give  the  Missourians  a  chance  to  make  Kansas  a  slave 
state  if  they  could,  for  Douglas  was  not  a  pro-slavery 
man  at  heart. 

Senator  Thompson,  of  Kentucky,  once  alluded  to  the 
division  of  the  territory  embraced  in  the  original  Ne 
braska  Bill  into  two  territories,  Kansas  and  Nebraska, 
showing  that  his  understanding  was  that  one  should  be  a 
free  state  and  the  other  a  slave  state,  if  the  South  could 
make  it  such.  He  said: 

When  the  bill  was  first  introduced  in  1854  it  provided  for  the 
organization  of  but  one  territory.  Whence  it  came  or  how  it 
came  scarcely  anybody  knows,  but  the  senator  from  Illinois 
(Mr.  Douglas)  has  always  had  the  credit  of  its  paternity.  I 
believe  he  acted  patriotically  for  what  he  thought  best  and 
right.  In  a  short  time,  however,  we  found  a  provision  for  a 
division  —  for  two  territories  —  Nebraska,  the  larger  one,  to 
be  a  free  state,  and  as  to  Kansas,  the  smaller  one,  repealing  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  we  of  the  South  taking  our  chance  for  it. 
That  was  certainly  a  beneficial  arrangement  to  the  North  and 
the  bill  was  passed  in  that  way.1 

What  were  Douglas's  reasons  for  repealing  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise?  It  was  generally  assumed  that  he  did 
it  in  order  to  gain  the  support  of  the  South  in  the  next 
national  convention  of  the  Democratic  party.  In  the 
absence  of  any  other  sufficient  motive,  this  will  probably 
be  the  verdict  of  posterity,  although  he  always  repelled 
that  charge  with  heat  and  indignation.  A  more  important 
question  is  whether  there  would  have  been  any  attempt 
to  repeal  it  if  Douglas  had  not  led  the  way.  This  may  be 
safely  answered  in  the  negative.  The  Southern  Senators 
did  not  show  any  haste  to  follow  Douglas  at  first.  They 
generally  spoke  of  the  measure  as  a  free-will  offering  of 

1  Cong.  Globe,  July,  1856,  Appendix,  p.  712. 


FIRST  ELECTION  AS  SENATOR  37 

the  North,  both  Douglas  and  Pierce  being  Northern 
men,  and  both  being  indispensable  to  secure  its  pas 
sage.  Francis  P.  Blair,  of  Missouri,  a  competent  witness, 
expressed  the  opinion  that  a  majority  of  the  Southern 
senators  were  opposed  to  the  measure  at  first  and  were 
coerced  into  it  by  the  fear  that  they  would  not  be  sus 
tained  at  home  if  they  refused  an  advantage  offered  to 
them  by  the  North.1 

The  Nebraska  Bill  passed  the  Senate  by  a  majority  of 
22,  and  the  House  by  a  majority  of  13.  The  Democratic 
party  of  the  North  was  cleft  in  twain,  as  was  shown  by  the 
division  of  their  votes  in  the  House:  44  to  43.  The  bill 
would  have  been  defeated  had  not  the  administration 
plied  the  party  lash  unmercifully,  using  the  official  pa 
tronage  to  coerce  unwilling  members.  In  this  way  did 
President  Pierce  redeem  his  pledge  to  prevent  any  revival 
of  the  slavery  agitation  during  his  term  of  office. 

When  the  bill  actually  passed  there  was  an  explosion  in 
every  Northern  State.  The  old  parties  were  rent  asunder 
and  a  new  one  began  to  crystallize  around  the  nucleus 
which  had  supported  Birney,  Van  Buren,  and  Hale  in 
the  elections  of  1844, 1848,  and  1852.  Both  Abraham  Lin 
coln  and  Lyman  Trumbull  were  stirred  to  new  activities. 
Both  took  the  stump  in  opposition  to  the  Nebraska  Bill. 

Trumbull  was  now  forty-one  years  of  age.  He  had 
gained  the  confidence  of  the  people  among  whom  he 
lived  to  such  a  degree  that  his  reelection  to  the  supreme 
bench  in  1852  had  been  unanimous.  He  now  joined  with 
Gustave  Koerner  and  other  Democrats  in  organizing  the 
Eighth  Congressional  District  in  opposition  to  Douglas 
and  his  Nebraska  Bill.  Although  this  district  had  been 
originally  a  slaveholding  region,  it  contained  a  large  infu- 

1  Letter  to  the  Missouri  Democrat,  dated  March  1,  1856,  quoted  in  P. 
Ormon  Ray's  Repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  p.  232. 


38  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

sion  of  German  immigration,  which  had  poured  into  it 
in  the  years  following  the  European  uprising  of  1848.  Of 
the  thirty  thousand  Germans  in  Illinois  in  1850,  Reynolds 
estimated  that  fully  eighteen  thousand  had  settled  in 
St.  Clair  County.  These  immigrants  had  at  first  attached 
themselves  to  the  Democratic  party,  because  its  name 
signified  government  by  the  people.  When,  however,  it 
became  apparent  to  them  that  the  Democratic  party  was 
the  ally  of  slavery,  they  went  over  to  the  opposition  in 
shoals,  under  the  lead  of  Koerner  and  Hecker.  Koerner 
was  at  that  time  lieutenant-governor  of  the  state,  and  his 
separation  from  the  party  which  had  elected  him  made 
a  profound  impression  on  his  fellow  countrymen.  Hecker 
was  a  fervid  orator  and  political  leader,  and  later  a 
valiant  soldier  in  the  Union  army. 

The  Eighth  Congressional  District  then  embraced  the 
counties  of  Bond,  Clinton,  Jefferson,  Madison,  Marion, 
Monroe,  Randolph,  St.  Clair,  and  Washington.  It  was 
the  strongest  Democratic  district  in  the  state,  but  politi 
cal  parties  had  been  thrown  into  such  disorder  by  the 
Nebraska  Bill  that  no  regular  nominations  for  Congress 
were  made  by  either  Whigs  or  Democrats.  Trumbull  an 
nounced  himself  as  an  anti-Nebraska  Democratic  candi 
date.  He  had  just  recovered  from  the  most  severe  and 
protracted  illness  of  his  life  and  was  in  an  enfeebled  con 
dition  in  consequence,  but  he  made  a  speaking  campaign 
throughout  the  district,  and  was  elected  by  7917  votes 
against  5306  cast  for  Philip  B.  Fouke,  who  ran  inde 
pendently  as  a  Douglas  Democrat.  This  victory  de 
feated  so  many  of  the  followers  of  Douglas  who  were 
candidates  for  the  legislature  that  it  became  possible  to 
elect  a  Senator  of  the  United  States  in  opposition  to  the 
regular  Democracy. 

If  political  honors  were  awarded  according  to  the  rules 


FIRST  ELECTION  AS  SENATOR  39 

of  quantum  meruit,  Abraham  Lincoln  would  have  been 
chosen  Senator  as  the  successor  of  James  Shields  at  this 
juncture,  since  he  had  contributed  more  than  any  other 
person  to  the  anti-Nebraska  victory  in  the  state.  He  had 
been  out  of  public  life  since  his  retirement  from  the 
lower  house  of  Congress  in  1848.  Since  then  he  had  been 
a  country  lawyer  with  a  not  very  lucrative  practice,  but 
a  very  popular  story-teller.  He -belonged  to  the  Whig 
party,  and  had  followed  Clay  and  Webster  in  supporting 
the  Compromise  measures  of  1850,  including  the  new 
Fugitive  Slave  Law,  for,  although  a  hater  of  slavery 
himself,  he  believed  that  the  Constitution  required  the 
rendition  of  slaves  escaping  into  the  free  states.  He 
was  startled  by  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise. 
Without  that  awakening,  he  would  doubtless  have  re 
mained  in  comparative  obscurity.  He  would  have  contin 
ued  riding  the  circuit  in  central  Illinois,  making  a  scanty 
living  as  a  lawyer,  entertaining  tavern  loungers  with 
funny  stories,  and  would  have  passed  away  unhonored 
and  unsung.  He  was  now  aroused  to  new  activity,  and 
when  Douglas  came  to  Springfield  at  the  beginning  of 
October  to  defend  his  Nebraska  Bill  on  the  hustings, 
Lincoln  replied  to  him  in  a  great  speech,  one  of  the 
world's  masterpieces  of  argumentative  power  and  moral 
grandeur,  which  left  Douglas's  edifice  of  "Popular 
Sovereignty"  a  heap  of  ruins.  This  was  the  first  speech 
made  by  him  that  gave  a  true  measure  of  his  qualities.  It 
was  the  first  public  occasion  that  laid  a  strong  hold  upon 
his  conscience  and  stirred  the  depths  of  his  nature.  It 
was  also  the  first  speech  of  his  that  the  writer  of  this  book, 
then  twenty  years  of  age,  ever  listened  to.  The  impres 
sion  made  by  it  has  lost  nothing  by  the  lapse  of  time. 
In  Lincoln's  complete  writings  it  is  styled  the  Peoria 
speech  of  October  16,  1854,  as  it  was  delivered  at  Peoria, 


40  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

after  the  Springfield  debate,  and  subsequently  written 
out  by  Lincoln  himself  for  publication  in  the  Sangamon 
Journal.  The  Peoria  speech  contained  a  few  passages  of 
rejoinder  to  Douglas's  reply  to  his  Springfield  speech.  In 
other  respects  they  were  the  same.1 

It  was  this  speech  that  drew  upon  Lincoln  the  eyes  of 
the  scattered  elements  of  opposition  to  Douglas.  These 
elements  were  heterogeneous  and  in  part  discordant.  The 
dividing  line  between  Whigs  and  Democrats  still  ran 
through  every  county  in  the  state,  but  there  was  a  third 
element,  unorganized  as  yet,  known  as  "Free-Soilers," 
who  traced  their  lineage  back  to  James  G.  Birney  and 
the  campaign  of  1844.  These  were  numerous  and  active 
in  the  northern  counties,  but  south  of  the  latitude 
of  Springfield  they  dwindled  away  rapidly.  The  Free- 

1  Some  testimony  as  to  the  effect  produced  upon  Douglas  himself  by  this 
speech  was  supplied  to  me  long  afterwards  from  a  trustworthy  quarter  in  the 
following  letter:  — 

NEW  YORK,  Dec.  7,  1908. 
MY  DEAR  MR.  WHITE: 

In  1891,  at  his  office  in  Chicago,  Mr.  W.  C.  Gowdy  told  me  that  Judge 
Douglas  spent  the  night  with  him  at  his  house  preceding  his  debate  with  Mr. 
Lincoln;  that  after  the  evening  meal  Judge  Douglas  exhibited  considerable 
restlessness,  pacing  back  and  forth  upon  the  floor  of  the  room,  evidently  with 
mental  preoccupation.  The  attitude  of  Judge  Douglas  was  so  unusual  that  Mr. 
Gowdy  felt  impelled  to  address  him,  and  said :  "  Judge  Douglas,  you  appear  to  be 
ill  at  ease  and  under  some  mental  agitation;  it  cannot  be  that  you  have  any 
anxiety  with  reference  to  the  outcome  of  the  debate  you  are  to  have  with  Mr. 
Lincoln;  you  cannot  have  any  doubt  of  your  ability  to  dispose  of  him." 

Whereupon  Judge  Douglas,  stopping  abruptly,  turned  to  Mr.  Gowdy  and 
said,  with  great  emphasis:  "Yes,  Gowdy,  I  am  troubled  over  the  progress  and 
outcome  of  this  debate.  I  have  known  Lincoln  for  many  years,  and  I  have  con 
tinually  met  him  in  debate.  I  regard  him  as  the  most  difficult  and  dangerous 
opponent  that  I  have  ever  met  and  I  have  serious  misgivings  as  to  what  may  be 
the  result  of  this  joint  debate." 

These  in  substance,  and  almost  in  exact  phraseology,  are  the  words  repeated 
to  me  by  Mr.  Gowdy.  Faithfully  yours, 

FRANCIS  LTNDE  STETSON. 

Mr.  Gowdy  was  a  state  senator  in  1854  and  his  home  was  at  or  near  Peoria. 
There  was  no  joint  debate  between  Lincoln  and  Douglas  at  or  near  Gowdy's 
residence,  except  that  of  1854. 


FIRST  ELECTION  AS  SENATOR  41 

Soilers  served  as  a  nucleus  for  the  crystallization  of  the 
Republican  party  two  years  later,  but  in  1854  the  older 
organizations,  although  much  demoralized,  were  still 
unbroken.  Probably  three  fourths  of  the  Whigs  were 
opposed  to  the  Nebraska  Bill  in  principle,  and  half  of  the 
remainder  were  glad  to  avail  themselves  of  any  rift  in  the 
Democratic  party  to  get  possession  of  the  offices.  There 
was  still  a  substantial  fraction  of  the  party,  however, 
v/hich  feared  any  taint  of  abolitionism  and  was  likely  to 
iside  with  Douglas  in  the  new  alignment. 

The  legislature  consisted  of  one  hundred  members  — 
twenty-five  senators  and  seventy-five  representatives. 
Twelve  of  the  senators  had  been  elected  in  1852  for  a  four 
years'  term,  and  thirteen  were  elected  in  1854.  Among  the 
former  were  N.  B.  Judd,  of  Chicago,  John  M.  Palmer, 
of  Carlinville,  and  Burton  C.  Cook,  of  Ottawa,  three 
Democrats  who  had  early  declared  their  opposition  to  the 
Nebraska  Bill.  The  full  Senate  was  composed  of  nine 
Whigs,  thirteen  regular  Democrats,  and  three  anti- 
Nebraska  Democrats.  A  fourth  holding-over  senator 
(Osgood,  Democrat)  represented  a  district  which  had 
given  an  anti-Nebraska  majority  in  this  election.  One 
of  the  Whig  members  (J.  L.  D.  Morrison)  of  St.  Clair 
County  was  elected  simultaneously  with  Trumbull,  but 
he  was  a  man  of  Southern  affiliations  and  his  vote  on  the 
senatorial  question  was  doubtful. 

At  this  time  there  was  no  law  compelling  the  two 
branches  of  a  state  legislature  to  unite  in  an  election  to 
fill  a  vacancy  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  Accord 
ingly,  when  one  party  controlled  one  branch  of  the  legis 
lature  and  the  opposite  party  controlled  the  other,  it  was 
not  uncommon  for  the  minority  to  refuse  to  go  into  joint 
convention.  This  was  the  case  now.  In  order  to  secure  a 
joint  meeting,  it  was  necessary  for  at  least  one  Democrat 


42  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

to  vote  with  the  anti-Nebraska  members.    Mr.  Osgood 
did  so. 

In  the  House  were  forty-six  anti-Nebraska  men  of  all 
descriptions  and  twenty-eight  Democrats.  One  member, 
Randolph  Heath,  of  the  Lawrence  and  Crawford  Dis 
trict,  did  not  vote  in  the  election  for  Senator  at  any  time. 
Two  members  from  Madison  County,  Henry  L.  Baker 
and  G.  T.  Allen,  had  been  elected  on  the  anti-Nebraska 
ticket  with  Trumbull. 

In  the  chaotic  condition  of  parties  it  was  not  to  be 
expected  that  all  the  opponents  of  Douglas  would  coalesce 
at  once.  The  Whig  party  was  held  together  by  the  hope 
of  reaping  large  gains  from  the  division  of  the  Democrats, 
on  the  Nebraska  Bill.  This  was  a  vain  hope,  because  the 
Whigs  were  divided  also;  but  while  it  existed  it  fanned 
the  flame  of  old  enmities.  Moreover,  the  anti-Nebraska 
Democrats  in  the  campaign  had  claimed  that  they  were 
the  true  Democracy  and  that  they  were  purifying  the 
party  in  order  to  preserve  and  strengthen  it.  They  could 
not  instantly  abandon  that  claim  by  voting  for  a  Whig 
for  the  highest  office  to  be  filled. 

The  two  houses  met  in  the  Hall  of  Representatives  on 
February  8,  1855,  to  choose  a  Senator.  Every  inch  of 
space  on  the  floor  and  lobby  was  occupied  by  members 
and  their  political  friends,  and  the  gallery  was  adorned 
by  well-dressed  women,  including  Mrs.  Lincoln  and  Mrs. 
Matteson,  the  governor's  wife,  and  her  fair  daughters. 
The  senatorial  election  had  been  the  topic  of  chief  con 
cern  throughout  the  state  for  many  months,  and  now  the 
interest  was  centred  in  a  single  room  not  more  than  one 
hundred  feet  square.  The  excitement  was  intense,  for 
everybody  knew  the  event  was  fraught  with  conse 
quences  of  great  pith  and  moment,  far  transcending  the 
fate  of  any  individual. 


FIRST  ELECTION  AS  SENATOR  43 

Mr.  Lincoln  had  been  designated  as  the  choice  of  a 
caucus  of  about  forty-five  members,  including  all  the 
Whigs  and  most  of  the  Free-Soilers,  with  their  leader, 
Rev.  Owen  Lovejoy,  brother  of  the  Alton  martyr. 

When  the  joint  convention  had  been  called  to  order, 
General  James  Shields  was  nominated  by  Senator  Ben 
jamin  Graham,  Abraham  Lincoln  by  Representative 
Stephen  T.  Logan,  and  Lyman  Trumbull  by  Senator 
John  M.  Palmer.  The  first  vote  resulted  as  follows : 

Lincoln 45 

Shields 41 

Trumbull 5 

Scattering 8 

Total .99 

Several  members  of  the  House  who  had  been  elected  as 
anti-Nebraska  Democrats  voted  for  Lincoln  and  a  few  for 
Shields.  The  vote  for  Trumbull  consisted  of  Senators 
Palmer,  Judd,  and  Cook  and  Representatives  Baker  and 
Allen. 

On  the  second  vote,  Lincoln  had  43  and  Trumbull  6, 
and  there  were  no  other  changes.  A  third  roll-call  resulted 
like  the  second.  Thereupon  Judge  Logan  moved  an 
adjournment,  but  this  was  voted  down  by  42  to  56.  On 
the  fourth  call,  Lincoln's  vote  fell  to  38  and  Trumbull's 
rose  to  11.  On  the  sixth,  Lincoln  lost  two  more,  and 
Trumbull  dropped  to  8. 

It  now  became  apparent  by  the  commotion  on  the 
Democratic  side  of  the  chamber  that  a  flank  movement 
was  taking  place.  There  had  been  a  rumor  on  the  streets 
that  if  the  reelection  of  Shields  was  found  to  be  impossi 
ble,  the  Democrats  would  change  to  Governor  Matteson, 
under  the  belief  that  since  he  had  never  committed  him 
self  to  the  Nebraska  Bill  he  would  be  able,  by  reason  of 


44  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

personal  and  social  attachments,  to  win  the  votes  of 
several  anti-Nebraska  Democrats  who  had  not  voted  for 
Shields.  This  scheme  was  developed  on  the  seventh  call, 
which  resulted  as  follows : 

Matteson 44 

Lincoln 38 

Trumbull 9 

Scattering 7 

Total 98 

On  the  eighth  call,  Matteson  gained  two  votes,  Lincoln 
fell  to  27,  and  Trumbull  received  18.  On  the  ninth  and 
tenth,  Matteson  had  47,  Lincoln  dropped  to  15,  and 
Trumbull  rose  to  35. 

The  excitement  deepened,  for  it  was  believed  that  the 
next  vote  would  be  decisive.  Matteson  wanted  only  three 
of  a  majority,  and  the  only  way  to  prevent  it  was  to  turn 
Lincoln's  fifteen  to  Trumbull,  or  Trumbull's  thirty -five  to 
Lincoln.  Obviously  the  former  was  the  only  safe  move, 
for  none  of  Lincoln's  men  would  go  to  Matteson  in  any 
kind  of  shuffle,  whereas  three  of  Trumbull's  men  might 
easily  be  lost  if  an  attempt  were  made  to  transfer  them  to 
the  Whig  leader.  Lincoln  was  the  first  to  see  the  immi 
nent  danger  and  the  first  to  apply  the  remedy.  In  fact 
he  was  the  only  one  who  could  have  done  so,  since  the 
fifteen  supporters  who  still  clung  to  him  would  never 
have  left  him  except  at  his  own  request.  He  now  be 
sought  his  friends  to  vote  for  Trumbull.  Some  natural 
tears  were  shed  by  Judge  Logan  when  he  yielded  to  the 
appeal.  He  said  that  the  demands  of  principle  were 
superior  to  those  of  personal  attachment,  and  he  trans 
ferred  his  vote  to  Trumbull.  All  of  the  remaining  four 
teen  followed  his  example,  and  there  was  a  gain  of 
one  vote  that  had  been  previously  cast  for  Archibald 


FIRST   ELECTION   AS  SENATOR  45 

Williams.  So  the  tenth  and  final  roll-call  gave  Trumbull 
fifty-one  votes,  and  Matteson  forty -seven.  One  member 
still  voted  for  Williams  and  one  did  not  vote  at  all.  Thus 
the  one  hundred  members  of  the  joint  convention  were 
accounted  for,  and  Trumbull  became  Senator  by  a 
majority  of  one. 

This  result  astounded  the  Democrats.  They  were  more 
disappointed  by  it  than  they  would  have  been  by  the 
election  of  Lincoln.  They  regarded  Trumbull  as  an  arch 
traitor.  That  he  and  his  fellow  traitors  Palmer,  Judd,  and 
Cook  should  have  carried  off  the  great  prize  was  an 
unexpected  dose;  but  they  did  not  know  how  bitter  it  was 
until  Trumbull  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate  and  opened 
fire  on  the  Nebraska  Bill. 

Lincoln  took  his  defeat  in  good  part.  Later  in  the 
evening  there  was  a  reception  given  at  the  house  of  Mr. 
Ninian  Edwards,  whose  wife  was  a  sister  of  Mrs.  Lincoln. 
He  had  been  much  interested  in  Lincoln's  success  and 
was  greatly  surprised  to  hear,  just  before  the  guests  began 
to  arrive,  that  Trumbull  had  been  elected.  He  and  his 
family  were  easily  reconciled  to  the  result,  however,  since 
Mrs.  Trumbull  had  been  from  girlhood  a  favorite  among 
them.  When  she  and  Trumbull  arrived,  they  were 
naturally  the  centre  of  attraction.  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Lincoln 
came  in  a  little  later.  The  hostess  and  her  daughters 
greeted  them  most  cordially,  saying  that  they  had  wished 
for  his  success,  and  that  while  he  must  be  disappointed, 
yet  he  should  bear  in  mind  that  his  principles  had  won. 
Mr.  Lincoln  smiled,  moved  toward  the  newly  elected 
Senator,  and  saying,  "Not  too  disappointed  to  con 
gratulate  my  friend  Trumbull,"  warmly  shook  his  hand. 

Lincoln's  account  of  this  election,  in  a  letter  to  Hon. 
E.  B.  Washburne,  concludes  by  saying: 

I  regret  my  defeat  moderately,  but  I  am  not  nervous  about 


46  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

it.  I  could  have  headed  off  every  combination  and  been  elected 
had  it  not  been  for  Matteson's  double  game  —  and  his  defeat 
now  gives  me  more  pleasure  than  my  own  gives  me  pain.  On 
the  whole,  it  was  perhaps  as  well  for  our  general  cause  that 
Trumbull  is  elected.  The  Nebraska  men  confess  that  they  hate 
it  worse  than  anything  that  could  have  happened.  It  is  a  great 
consolation  to  see  them  worse  whipped  than  I  am.  I  tell  them 
it  is  their  own  fault  —  that  they  had  abundant  opportunity  to 
choose  between  him  and  me,  which  they  declined,  and  instead 
forced  it  on  me  to  decide  between  him  and  Matteson. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  Trumbull  took  any  steps 
whatever  to  secure  his  own  election  in  this  contest.1 

1  The  following  manuscript,  written  by  one  of  Lincoln's  supporters  who  was 
himself  a  member  of  the  legislature,  was  found  among  the  papers  of  William  H. 
Herndon : 

"In  the  contest  for  the  United  States  Senate  in  the  winter  of  1854-55  in  the 
Illinois  Legislature,  nearly  all  the  Whigs  and  some  of  the  '  anti-Nebraska  Dem 
ocrats'  preferred  Mr.  Lincoln  to  any  other  man.  Some  of  them  (and  myself 
among  the  number)  had  been  candidates  and  had  been  elected  by  the  people 
for  the  express  purpose  of  doing  all  in  their  power  for  his  election,  and  a  great 
deal  of  their  time  during  the  session  was  taken  up,  both  in  caucus  and  out  of  it, 
in  laboring  to  unite  the  anti-Nebraska  party  on  their  favorite,  but  there  was 
from  the  first,  as  the  result  proved,  an  insuperable  obstacle  to  their  success. 
Four  of  the  anti-Nebraska  Democrats  had  been  elected  in  part  by  Democrats, 
and  they  not  only  personally  preferred  Mr.  Trumbull,  but  considered  his  elec 
tion  necessary  to  consolidate  the  union  between  all  those  who  were  opposed  to 
repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  and  to  the  new  policy  upon  the  subject  of 
slavery  which  Mr.  Douglas  and  his  friends  were  laboring  so  hard  to  inaugurate. 
They  insisted  that  the  election  of  Mr.  Trumbull  to  the  Senate  would  secure 
thousands  of  Democratic  votes  to  the  anti-Nebraska  party  who  would  be 
driven  off  by  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  —  that  the  Whig  party  were  nearly  a 
unit  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Douglas,  so  that  the  election  of  the  favorite  candidate 
of  the  majority  would  give  no  particular  strength  in  that  quarter,  and  they 
manifested  a  fixed  purpose  to  vote  steadily  for  Mr.  Trumbull  and  not  at  all  for 
Mr.  Lincoln,  and  thus  compel  the  friends  of  Mr.  Lincoln  to  vote  for  their  man 
to  prevent  the  election  of  Governor  Matteson,  who,  as  was  ascertained,  could, 
after  the  first  few  ballots,  carry  enough  anti-Nebraska  men  to  elect  him.  These 
four  men  were  Judd,  of  Cook,  Palmer,  of  Macoupin,  Cook,  of  LaSalle,  and 
Baker,  of  Madison.  Allen,  of  Madison,  went  with  them,  but  was  not  inflex 
ible,  and  would  have  voted  for  Lincoln  cheerfully,  but  did  not  want  to  separate 
from  his  Democratic  friends.  These  men  kept  aloof  from  the  caucus  of  both 
parties  during  the  winter.  They  would  not  act  with  the  Democrats  from 
principle,  and  would  not  act  with  the  Whigs  from  policy. 

"When  the  election  came  off,  it  was  evident,  after  the  first  two  or  three 


FIRST   ELECTION  AS  SENATOR  47 

If  Lincoln  had  been  chosen  at  this  time,  his  campaign 
against  Douglas  for  the  Senate  in  1858  would  not  have 
taken  place.  Consequently  he  would  not  have  been  the 
cynosure  of  all  eyes  in  that  spectacular  contest.  It  was 
Douglas's  prestige  and  prowess  that  drew  him  into  the 
limelight  at  that  important  juncture,  and  made  his  nom 
ination  as  President  possible  in  1860. 

ballots,  that  Mr.  Lincoln  could  not  be  elected,  and  it  was  feared  that  if  the 
balloting  continued  long,  Governor  Matteson  would  be  elected.  Mr.  Lincoln 
then  advised  his  friends  to  vote  for  Mr.  Trumbull;  they  did  so,  and  elected  him. 

"Mr.  Lincoln  was  very  much  disappointed,  for  I  think  that  at  that  time  it 
was  the  height  of  his  ambition  to  get  into  the  United  States  Senate.  He  mani 
fested,  however,  no  bitterness  towards  Mr.  Judd  or  the  other  anti-Nebraska 
Democrats,  by  whom  practically  he  was  beaten,  but  evidently  thought  that 
their  motives  were  right.  He  told  me  several  times  afterwards  that  the  election  of 
Trumbull  was  the  best  thing  that  could  have  happened. 

"There  was  a  great  deal  of  dissatisfaction  throughout  the  state  at  the  result 
of  the  election.  The  Whigs  constituted  a  vast  majority  of  the  anti-Nebraska 
party.  They  thought  they  were  entitled  to  the  Senator  and  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
by  his  contest  with  Mr.  Douglas  had  caused  the  victory.  Mr.  Lincoln,  however, 
generously  exonerated  Mr.  Trumbull  and  his  friends  from  all  blame  in  the 
matter.  Trumbull's  first  encounter  with  Douglas  in  the  Senate  filled  the  people 
of  Illinois  with  admiration  for  his  abilities,  and  the  ill-feeling  caused  by  his 
election  gradually  faded  away. 

"SAM  C.  PARKS." 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   KANSAS   WAR 

TRUMBULL  took  his  seat  in  the  Senate  at  the  first 
session  of  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  December  3,  1855. 
His  credentials  were  presented  by  Senator  Crittenden, 
of  Kentucky.  Senator  Cass,  of  Michigan,  presented  a 
protest  from  certain  members  of  the  legislature  of  Illinois 
reciting  that  the  constitution  of  that  state  made  the 
judges  of  the  supreme  and  circuit  courts  ineligible  to  any 
other  office  in  the  state,  or  in  the  United  States,  during 
the  terms  for  which  they  were  elected  and  one  year 
thereafter;  affirming  that  Trumbull  was  elected  judge  of 
the  supreme  court  June  7,  1852,  for  the  term  of  nine 
years  and  entered  upon  the  duties  of  that  office  June  24, 
1852;  that  the  said  term  of  office  would  not  expire  until 
1861;  and  that,  therefore,  he  was  not  legally  elected  a 
Senator  of  the  United  States.  The  papers  were  eventually 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  but  in  the 
mean  time  Trumbull  was  sworn  in.  Before  the  question 
of  reference  was  disposed  of,  however,  Senator  Seward 
contended  that  no  state  could  fix  or  define  the  qualifi 
cations  of  a  Senator  of  the  United  States.  He  instanced 
the  case  of  N.  P.  Tallmadge,  who  had  been  elected  a 
Senator  from  New  York  while  serving  as  a  member  of 
the  legislature  of  that  state,  although  the  constitution  of 
New  York  disqualified  him  and  all  other  members  from 
such  election.  Tallmadge  was  nevertheless  admitted  .to 
the  Senate  and  served  his  full  term.  Trumbull's  right  to 
his  seat  was  decided  in  accordance  with  that  precedent 
bv  a  vote  of  35  to  8,  on  the  5th  of  March,  1856.  Senator 


THE  KANSAS  WAR  49 

Douglas  did  not  vote  on  this  question,  nor  did  he  take 
part  in  the  argument  on  it. 

The  subject  of  burning  interest  in  Congress  was  the 
condition  of  affairs  in  Kansas  Territory.  When  the  bill 
repealing  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  pending,  the 
opinion  had  been  generally  expressed  by  its  supporters 
that  slavery  never  would  or  could  go  into  that  region. 
Several  Southern  Senators  and  most  of  the  Northern 
Democrats  had  held  this  view.  Hunter,  of  Virginia, 
considered  it  utterly  hopeless  to  expect  that  either 
Kansas  or  Nebraska  would  ever  be  a  slaveholding  state. 
Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  said  that  he  had  no  more 
idea  of  seeing  a  slave  population  in  either  of  them  than 
he  had  of  seeing  it  in  Massachusetts.  Dixon,  of  Ken 
tucky,  held  a  similar  view.  Nor  is  there  any  reason  to 
doubt  the  sincerity  of  these  men.  Apparently  the  only 
Southern  Senator  who  then  cherished  a  different  belief 
was  Atchison,  of  Missouri,  whose  home  was  on  the  border 
of  Kansas  and  whose  opinions  were  based  upon  personal 
knowledge  and  backed  by  self-interest. 

President  Pierce  appointed  Andrew  H.  Reeder,  of 
Pennsylvania,  governor  of  Kansas  Territory.  Reeder 
was  not  unwilling  to  cooperate  with  the  South  in  estab 
lishing  slavery  in  an  orderly  way,  but  was  quite  unpre 
pared  for  the  tactics  which  had  been  planned  by  others 
to  expedite  his  movements.  He  called  an  election  for  a 
delegate  in  Congress  to  be  held  on  the  29th  of  November, 
1854.  An  organized  army  of  Missourians  marched  over 
the  Kansas  border,  seized  the  polling-places,  and  cast 
1749  fraudulent  votes  for  a  pro-slavery  man  named 
Whitfield.  This  was  a  gratuitous  and  unnecessary  act  of 
violence,  since  the  bona-fide  settlers  from  Missouri  out 
numbered  the  Free  State  men  and  the  latter  were,  as 
yet,  unorganized  and  unprepared.  Governor  Reeder  con- 


50  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

firmed  the  election  and  thus  gave  encouragement  to  the 
invaders  for  their  next  attempt. 

A  few  immigrants  had  already  gone  into  the  territory 
from  the  New  England  States,  moved  by  the  desire  of 
bettering  their  condition  in  life.  Some  of  them  had  been 
assisted  by  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company  of  Worcester, 
Massachusetts,  a  society  started  by  Eli  Thayer  for  the 
purpose  of  furnishing  capital,  by  loans,  to  such  persons 
for  traveling  expenses  and  for  the  building  of  hotels, 
sawmills,  private  dwellings,  etc.  These  settlers  from  the 
East  were  as  little  prepared  as  Reeder  himself  for  the 
sudden  swoop  of  Missourians,  and  although  they  wrote 
letters  to  Northern  Congressmen  and  newspapers  pro 
testing  against  the  election  of  Whitfield  as  an  act  of 
invasion  and  a  barefaced  fraud,  nothing  was  done  to 
prevent  him  from  taking  his  seat. 

The  next  election  (for  members  of  the  territorial 
legislature)  was  fixed  for  the  30th  of  March,  1855.  What 
kind  of  preparations  for  it  had  been  made  in  the  mean 
time  in  Missouri  was  plainly  indicated  by  the  following 
letter,  dated  Brunswick,  Missouri,  April  20,  1855, 
published  in  the  New  York  Herald : 

From  five  to  seven  thousand  men  started  from  Missouri  to 
attend  the  election,  some  to  remove,  but  most  to  return  to  their 
families  with  an  intention,  if  they  liked  the  territory,  to  make 
it  their  permanent  home  at  the  earliest  moment  practicable. 
But  they  intended  to  vote.  The  Missourians  were  many  of  them 
Douglas  men.  There  were  one  hundred  and  fifty  voters  from 
this  county,  one  hundred  and  seventy-five  from  Howard,  one 
hundred  from  Cooper.  Indeed,  every  county  furnished  its 
quota,  and  when  they  set  out  it  looked  like  an  army.  They 
were  armed.  And  as  there  were  no  houses  in  the  territory  they 
carried  tents.  Their  mission  was  a  peaceable  one  —  to  vote, 
and  to  drive  down  stakes  for  their  future  homes. 

After  the  election  some  1500  of  the  voters  sent  a  committee 
to  Mr.  Reeder  to  ascertain  if  it  was  his  purpose  to  ratify  the 


THE  KANSAS  WAR  51 

election.  He  answered  that  it  was,  and  said  that  the  majority 
at  an  election  must  carry  the  day.  But  it  is  not  to  be  denied 
that  the  1500,  apprehending  that  the  governor  might  attempt 
to  play  the  tyrant,  since  his  conduct  had  already  been  insidi 
ous  and  unjust,  wore  on  their  hats  bunches  of  hemp.  They 
were  resolved,  if  a  tyrant  attempted  to  trample  on  the  rights  of 
the  sovereign  people,  to  hang  him. 

It  was  not  conscious  brigandage  that  prompted  this 
movement,  but  the  simplicity  of  minds  tutored  on  the 
frontier  and  fashioned  in  the  environment  of  slavery. 
The  fifteen  hundred  Missourians,  who  gave  Governor 
Reeder  to  understand  that  they  would  hang  him  on  the 
nearest  tree  if  he  did  not  ratify  their  invasion  of  Kan 
sas,  had  homes,  farms,  and  families.  They  supported 
churches  and  schools  of  a  certain  kind  and  considered 
themselves  qualified  to  civilize  Africans.  They  were 
types  of  the  best  society  that  they  had  any  conception  of. 
Far  from  concealing  anything  that  they  had  done,  they 
boasted  of  it  openly  in  their  newspaper  organ,  the 
Squatter  Sovereign,  which  published  the  following  under 
the  date  of  April  1 : 

INDEPENDENCE,  Mo.,  March  31,  1855.  —  Several  hundred 
emigrants  from  Kansas  have  just  entered  our  city.  They  were 
preceded  by  the  Westport  and  Independence  brass  bands. 
They  came  in  at  the  west  side  of  the  public  square  and  pro 
ceeded  entirely  around  it,  the  bands  cheering  us  with  fine 
music,  and  the  emigrants  with  good  news.  Immediately  fol 
lowing  the  bands  were  about  two  hundred  horsemen  in  regular 
order.  Following  these  were  one  hundred  and  fifty  wagons, 
carriages,  etc.  They  gave  repeated  cheers  for  Kansas  and 
Missouri.  They  report  that  not  an  anti-slavery  man  will  be  in 
the  Legislature  of  Kansas.  We  have  made  a  clean  sweep.1 

This  invasion  was  as  needless  as  the  former  one,  since 
the  Free  State  men  were  still  in  the  minority,  counting 

1  Edited  by  B.  F.  Stringfellow,  author  of  African  Slavery  no  Evil,  St.  Louis, 
1854. 


52  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

actual  settlers  only;  but  the  pro-slavery  party  were 
determined  to  leave  nothing  to  chance.  Senator  Atchison, 
in  a  speech  at  Weston,  Missouri,  on  the  9th  of  November, 
1854,  had  told  his  constituents  how  to  secure  the  prize: 

When  you  reside  in  one  day's  journey  of  the  territory,  and 
when  your  peace,  your  quiet,  and  your  property  depend  upon 
your  action,  you  can,  without  an  exertion,  send  five  hundred  of 
your  young  men  who  will  vote  in  favor  of  your  institution. 
Should  each  county  in  the  state  of  Missouri  only  do  its  duty, 
the  question  will  be  decided  quietly  and  peaceably  at  the 
ballot-box.  If  you  are  defeated,  then  Missouri  and  the  other 
Southern  States  will  have  shown  themselves  to  be  recreant  to 
their  interests  and  will  deserve  their  fate.1 

A  little  later  we  find  him  writing  letters  like  the 
following  to  a  friend  in  Atlanta,  Georgia: 

Let  your  young  men  come  forth  to  Missouri  and  Kansas. 
Let  them  come  well  armed,  with  money  enough  to  support 
them  for  twelve  months  and  determined  to  see  this  thing  out ! 
I  do  not  see  how  we  are  to  avoid  a  civil  war;  —  come  it  will. 
Twelve  months  will  not  elapse  before  war  —  civil  war  of  the 
fiercest  kind  —  will  be  upon  us.  We  are  arming  and  preparing 
for  it. 

Atchison  was  constantly  spurring  others  to  deeds  of 
lawlessness  and  violence,  but  he  always  stopped  short 
of  committing  any  himself.  He  was  probably  restrained 
by  the  fear  of  losing  influence  at  Washington.  It  was  by 
no  means  certain  that  President  Pierce  would  tolerate 
everything.  The  sad  fate  of  one  of  the  companies  re 
cruited  in  the  South  for  immigration  to  Kansas  is  nar 
rated  in  the  following  letter,  addressed  to  Senator 
Trumbull  by  John  C.  Underwood,  of  Culpeper  Court 
House,  Virginia : 

Soon  after  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1854, 
1  Cited  in  Villard's  John  Brown,  p.  94. 


THE  KANSAS  WAR  53 

in  the  neighborhood  of  Winchester  and  Harper's  Ferry  the  pro 
ject  of  sending  a  company  of  young  men  to  Kansas  to  make  it 
a  slave  state  was  much  agitated.  Subscriptions  for  that  pur 
pose  were  asked,  and  the  duty  of  strengthening  our  sectional 
interest  of  slavery  by  adding  two  friendly  Senators  to  your 
honorable  body,  was  urged  with  great  zeal  upon  my  neighbors. 
This  was  long  before  I  had  heard  of  any  movement  of  the  New 
England  Aid  Co.,  or  of  anybody  on  the  part  of  freedom.  It  was 
my  understanding  at  the  time  that  Senator  Mason  was  the  main 
adviser  in  the  project.  This  may  not  have  been  the  case.  The 
history  of  this  company  will  not  be  soon  forgotten.  Its  taking 
the  train  on  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  R.  R.  at  Harper's  Ferry,  its 
exploits  in  Kansas  up  to  the  fall  of  its  leader  (Sharrard)  at  the 
hands  of  Jones,  the  friend  of  the  Democratic  Gov.  Geary,  are  all 
still  well  remembered.  The  return  of  the  company  with  the 
dead  body  of  their  leader,  and  the  blasted  hopes  of  its  sanguine 
originators,  was  a  gloomy  day  in  our  beautiful  valley,  and  cre 
ated  a  sensation  throughout  the  country. 

Another  letter  among  the  Trumbull  papers  deserves  a 
place  here,  the  author  of  which  was  Isaac  T.  Dement, 
who  (writing  from  Hudson,  Illinois,  January  10,  1857) 
says  that  he  was  living  in  Kansas  the  previous  year  and 
had  filed  his  intention  on  one  hundred  and  sixty  acres  of 
land  where  he  had  a  small  store  and  a  dwelling-house: 

On  the  3d  of  September  last  [he  continues]  a  band  of  armed 
men  from  Missouri  came  to  my  place,  and  after  taking  what 
they  wanted  from  the  store,  burned  it  and  the  house,  and  said 
that  if  they  could  find  me  they  would  hang  me.  They  said  that 
they  had  broken  open  a  post-office  and  found  a  letter  that  I 
wrote  to  Lane  and  Brown  asking  them  to  come  and  help  us 
with  a  company  of  Sharpe's  rifles  (this  is  a  lie) ;  and  also  that  I 
had  furnished  Lane  and  Brown's  men  with  provisions  (a  lie), 
and  that  I  was  a  Free  State  man  (that  is  so). 

Mr.  Dement  hoped  that  Congress  would  do  something 
to  compensate  him  for  his  losses. 

Governor  Reeder  ought  to  have  been  prepared  for  the 
second  invasion.  He  had  had  sufficient  warning.  Unless 


54  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

he  was  ready  to  go  all  lengths  with  Atchison  and  String- 
fellow,  he  ought  to  have  declared  the  entire  election 
invalid  and  reported  the  facts  to  President  Pierce.  But  he 
did  nothing  of  the  kind.  He  merely  rejected  the  votes  of 
seven  election  districts  where  the  most  notorious  frauds 
had  been  committed,  and  declared  "duly  elected"  the 
persons  voted  for  in  others.  Eventually  the  members 
holding  certificates  organized  as  a  legislature  and  ad 
mitted  the  seven  who  had  been  rejected  by  Reeder.  The 
latter  took  an  early  opportunity  to  go  to  Washington 
City  to  make  a  report  to  the  President  in  person.  He 
stopped  en  route  at  his  home  in  Easton,  Pennsylvania, 
where  he  made  a  public  speech  exposing  the  frauds  in  the 
election  and  confirming  the  reports  of  the  Free  State 
settlers.  Stringfellow  warned  him  not  to  come  back.  In 
the  Squatter  Sovereign  of  May  29,  1855,  he  said : 

From  reports  received  of  Reeder  he  never  intends  returning 
to  our  borders.  Should  he  do  so  we,  without  hesitation,  say 
that  our  people  ought  to  hang  him  by  the  neck  like  a  traitorous 
dog,  as  he  is,  so  soon  as  he  puts  his  unhallowed  feet  upon  our 
shores.  Vindicate  your  characters  and  the  territory;  and  should 
the  ungrateful  dog  dare  to  come  among  us  again,  hang  him  to 
the  first  rotten  tree.  A  military  force  to  protect  the  ballot-box ! 
Let  President  Pierce  or  Governor  Reeder,  or  any  other  power, 
attempt  such  a  course  in  this,  or  any  portion  of  the  Union,  and 
that  day  will  never  be  forgotten. 

The  "Border  Ruffian"  legislature  proceeded  to  enact 
the  entire  slave  code  of  Missouri  as  laws  of  Kansas.  It 
was  made  a  criminal  offense  for  anybody  to  deny  that 
slavery  existed  in  Kansas,  or  to  print  anything,  or  to 
introduce  any  printed  matter,  making  such  denial. 
Nobody  could  hold  any  office,  even  that  of  notary  public, 
who  should  make  such  denial.  The  crime  of  enticing  any 
slave  to  leave  his  master  was  made  punishable  with 
death,  or  imprisonment  for  ten  years.  That  of  advising 


THE  KANSAS  WAR  55 

slaves,  by  speaking,  writing,  or  printing,  to  rebel,  was 
punishable  with  death. 

Reeder  was  removed  from  office  by  President  Pierce 
on  the  15th  of  August,  and  Wilson  Shannon,  a  former 
governor  of  Ohio,  was  appointed  as  his  successor. 

The  Free  State  men  held  a  convention  at  Topeka  in 
October,  1855,  and  framed  a  state  constitution,  to  be 
submitted  to  a  popular  vote,  looking  to  admission  to  the 
Union.  This  was  equivalent  merely  to  a  petition  to 
Congress,  but  it  was  stigmatized  as  an  act  of  rebellion  by 
the  pro-slavery  party , 

On  the  24th  of  January,  1856,  President  Pierce  sent  a 
special  message  to  Congress  on  the  subject  of  the  dis 
turbance  in  Kansas.  He  alluded  to  the  "angry  accusa 
tions  that  illegal  votes  had  been  polled,"  and  to  the 
"imputations  of  fraud  and  violence";  but  he  relied  upon 
the  fact  that  the  governor  had  admitted  some  members 
and  rejected  others  and  that  each  legislative  assembly 
had  undoubted  authority  to  determine,  in  the  last 
resort,  the  election  and  qualification  of  its  own  members. 
Thus  a  principle  intended  to  apply  to  a  few  exceptional 
cases  of  dispute  was  stretched  to  cover  a  case  where  all 
the  seats  had  been  obtained  by  fraud  and  usurpation. 
"For  all  present  purposes,"  he  added  feebly,  the  "legis 
lative  body  thus  constituted  and  elected  was  the  legiti 
mate  assembly  of  the  Territory." 

This  message  was  referred  to  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Territories.  On  the  12th  of  March,  Senator  Douglas 
submitted  a  report  from  the  committee,  and  Senator 
Collamer,  of  Vermont,  submitted  a  minority  report. 
This  was  the  occasion  of  the  first  passage-at-arms 
between  Douglas  and  his  new  colleague.  The  report  was 
not  merely  a  general  endorsement  of  President  Pierce's 
contention  that  it  was  impossible  to  go  behind  the  returns 


56  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

of  the  Kansas  election,  as  certified  by  Governor  Reeder, 
but  it  went  much  further  in  the  same  direction,  putting 
all  the  blame  for  the  disorders  on  the  New  England  Emi 
grant  Aid  Company,  and  practically  justifying  the 
Missourians  as  a  people  "protecting  their  own  firesides 
from  the  apprehended  horrors  of  servile  insurrection  and 
intestine  war."  Logically,  from  Douglas's  new  stand 
point,  the  New  Englanders  had  no  right  to  settle  in 
Kansas  at  all,  if  they  had  the  purpose  to  make  it  a  free 
state.  To  this  complexion  had  the  doctrine  of  "popular 
sovereignty"  come  in  the  short  space  of  two  years. 

Two  days  after  the  presentation  of  this  report,  Mr. 
Trumbull  made  a  three  hours'  speech  upon  it  without 
other  preparation  than  a  perusal  of  it  in  a  newspaper;  it 
had  not  yet  been  printed  by  the  Senate.  This  speech 
was  a  part  of  one  of  the  most  exciting  debates  in  the  an 
nals  of  Congress.  He  began  with  a  calm  but  searching 
review  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Act,  dwelling  first  on  the 
failure  of  the  measure  to  fix  any  time  when  the  people  of 
a  territory  should  exercise  the  right  of  deciding  whether 
they  would  have  slavery  or  not.  He  illustrated  his  point 
by  citing  some  resolutions  adopted  by  a  handful  of 
squatters  in  Kansas  as  early  as  September,  1854,  many 
months  before  any  legislature  had  been  organized  or 
elected,  in  which  it  was  declared  that  the  squatters  afore 
said  "would  exercise  the  right  of  expelling  from  the 
territory,  or  otherwise  punishing  any  individual,  or 
individuals,  who  may  come  among  us  and  by  act,  con 
spiracy,  or  other  illegal  means,  entice  away  our  slaves  or 
clandestinely  attempt  in  any  way  or  form  to  affect  our 
rights  of  property  in  the  same."  These  resolutions  were 
passed  before  any  persons  had  arrived  under  the  auspices, 
or  by  the  aid,  of  the  New  England  Emigrant  Aid  Com 
pany;  showing  that,  so  far  from  being  aroused  to  violence 


THE  KANSAS  WAR  57 

by  the  threatening  attitude  of  that  organization,  the 
Missourians  were  giving  notice  beforehand  that  violence 
would  be  used  upon  any  intending  settlers  who  might 
be  opposed  to  the  introduction  of  slavery. 

Douglas  had  wonderful  skill  in  introducing  sophisms 
into  a  discussion  so  deftly  that  his  opponent  would  not 
be  likely  to  notice  them,  or  would  think  them  not  worth 
answering,  and  then  enlarging  upon  them  and  leading 
the  debate  away  upon  a  false  scent,  thus  convincing  the 
hearers  that,  as  his  opponent  was  weak  in  this  particu 
lar,  he  was  probably  weak  everywhere.  It  was  TrumbulPs 
forte  that  he  never  failed  to  detect  these  tricks  and  turns 
and  never  neglected  them,  but  exposed  them  instantly, 
before  proceeding  on  the  main  line  of  his  argument.  It 
was  this  faculty  that  made  his  coming  into  the  Senate  a 
welcome  reinforcement  to  the  Republican  side  of  the 
chamber. 

The  report  under  consideration  abounded  in  these 
characteristic  Douglas  pitfalls.  It  said,  for  example: 

Although  the  act  of  incorporation  [of  the  Emigrant  Aid 
Company]  does  not  distinctly  declare  that  it  was  formed  for  the 
purpose  of  controlling  the  domestic  institutions  of  Kansas  and 
forcing  it  into  the  Union  with  a  prohibition  of  slavery  in  her 
constitution,  regardless  of  the  rights  and  wishes  of  the  people  as 
guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  secured  by 
their  organic  law,  yet  the  whole  history  of  the  movement,  the 
circumstances  in  which  it  had  its  origin,  and  the  professions  and 
avowals  of  all  engaged  in  it  rendered  it  certain  and  undeniable 
that  such  was  its  object. 

Here  was  a  double  sophistry:  First,  the  implication 
that,  if  the  Emigrant  Aid  Company  had  boldly  avowed 
that  its  purpose  was  to  control  the  domestic  institutions 
of  Kansas  and  bring  it  into  the  Union  as  a  free  state,  its 
heinousness  would  have  been  plain  to  all;  second,  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the  organic  act 


58  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

of  the  territory  itself,  guaranteed  the  people  against  such 
an  outrage.  But  the  declared  object  of  the  Nebraska 
Bill  was  to  allow  the  people  to  do  this  very  thing  by  a 
majority  vote.  Mr.  Trumbull  brought  his  flail  down 
upon  this  pair  of  sophisms  with  resounding  force.  In  de 
bate  with  Senator  Hale,  a  few  days  earlier,  Toombs,  of 
Georgia,  had  had  the  manliness  to  say: 

With  reference  to  that  portion  of  the  Senator's  argument 
justifying  the  Emigrant  Aid  Societies,  —  whatever  may  be 
their  policy,  whatever  may  be  the  tendency  of  that  policy  to 
produce  strife,  —  if  they  simply  aid  emigrants  from  Massachu 
setts  to  go  to  Kansas  and  to  become  citizens  of  that  territory, 
I  am  prepared  to  say  that  they  violate  no  law;  and  they  had  a 
right  to  do  it;  and  every  attempt  to  prevent  them  from  doing 
so  violated  the  law  and  ought  not  to  be  sustained.1 

By  way  of  justifying  the  Border  Ruffians  the  report 
said  that  when  the  emigrants  from  New  England  were 
going  through  Missouri,  the  violence  of  their  language 
and  behavior  excited  apprehensions  that  their  object  was 
to  "  abolitionize  Kansas  as  a  means  of  prosecuting  a  re 
lentless  warfare  on  the  institution  of  slavery  within  the 
limits  of  Missouri." 

What!  [said  Trumbull,]  abolitionize  Kansas!  It  was  said  on 
all  sides  of  the  Senate  Chamber  (when  the  Nebraska  bill  was 
pending)  that  it  was  never  meant  to  have  slavery  go  into 
Kansas.  What  is  meant,  then,  by  abolitionizing  Kansas?  Is 
it  abolitionizing  a  territory  already  free,  and  which  was  never 
meant  to  be  anything  but  free,  for  Free  State  men  to  settle  in 
it?  I  cannot  understand  the  force  of  such  language.  But  they 
were  to  abolitionize  Kansas,  according  to  this  report,  and  for 
what  purpose?  As  a  means  for  prosecuting  a  relentless  warfare 
on  the  institution  of  slavery  within  the  limits  of  Missouri. 
Where  is  the  evidence  of  such  a  design?  I  would  like  to  see  it. 
It  is  not  in  this  report,  and  if  it  exists  I  will  go  as  far  as  the 
gentleman  to  put  it  down.  I  will  neither  tolerate  nor  counte- 
1  Cong.  Globe,  Appendix,  1856,  p.  118. 


THE  KANSAS   WAR  59 

nance  by  my  action  here  or  elsewhere  any  society  which  is 
resorting  to  means  for  prosecuting  a  relentless  warfare  upon  the 
institution  of  slavery  within  the  limits  of  Missouri  or  any  other 
state.  But  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  of  any  such  inten 
tion  in  the  document  which  professes  to  set  forth  the  acts  of 
the  Emigrant  Aid  Society,  and  which  is  incorporated  in  this 
report. l 

Trumbull  next  took  up  the  contention  of  the  report  that 
since  Governor  Reeder  had  recognized  the  usurping  leg 
islature,  he  and  all  other  governmental  authorities  were 
estopped  from  inquiring  into  its  validity.  No  great  effort 
of  a  trained  legal  mind  was  required  to  overthrow  that 
pretension.  Trumbull  demolished  it  thoroughly.  After 
giving  a  calm  and  lucid  sketch  of  the  existing  condition 
of  affairs  in  the  territory,  Trumbull  brought  his  speech 
to  a  conclusion.  It  fills  six  pages  of  the  Congressional 
Globe.2 

This  was  the  prelude  to  a  hot  debate  with  Douglas, 
who  immediately  took  the  floor.  Trumbull  had  remarked 
in  the  course  of  his  speech  that  the  only  political  party 
with  which  he  had  ever  had  any  affiliations  was  the  De 
mocratic.  Douglas  said  that  he  should  make  a  reply  to 
his  colleague's  speech  as  soon  as  it  should  be  printed  in 
the  Globe,  but  that  he  wished  to  take  notice  now  of  the 

1  The  writer  of  this  book  was  intimately  acquainted  with  the  doings  of  the 
Emigrant  Aid  Societies  of    the  country,  having    been  connected  with    the 
National  Kansas  Committee  at  Chicago.   The  emigrants  usually  went  up  the 
Missouri  River  by  rail  from  St.  Louis  to  Jefferson  City  and  thence  by  steam 
boat  to  Kansas  City,  Wyandotte,  or  Leavenworth.   They  were  cautioned  to 
conceal  as  much  as  possible  their  identity  and  destination,  in  order  to  avoid 
trouble.   Such  caution  was  not  necessary,  however,  since  the  emigrants  knew 
that  their  own  success  depended  largely  upon  keeping  that  avenue  of  approach 
to  Kansas  open.  Later,  in  the  summer  of  1856,  it  was  closed,  not  in  consequence 
of  any  threatening  language  or  action  on  the  part  of  the  emigrants,  but  because 
the  Border  Ruffians  were  determined  to  cut  off  reinforcements  to  the  Free 
State  men  in  Kansas.  The  tide  of  travel  then  took  the  road  through  Iowa  and 
Nebraska,  a  longer,  more  circuitous,  and  more  expensive  route. 

2  Appendix,  p.  200. 


60  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

statement  that  Trumbull  claimed  to  be  a  Democrat. 
This,  he  said,  would  be  considered  by  every  Democrat 
in  Illinois  as  a  libel  upon  the  party. 

Senator  Crittenden  called  Douglas  to  order  for  using 
the  word  "libel,"  which  he  said  was  unparliamentary, 
being  equivalent  to  the  word  "lie."  Douglas  insisted 
that  he  had  not  imputed  untruth  to  his  colleague,  but  had 
only  said  that  all  the  Democrats  in  Illinois  would  impute 
it  to  him  when  they  should  read  his  speech.  He  then 
went  into  a  general  tirade  about  "Black  Republicans," 
"Know-No things,"  and  "Abolitionists,"  who,  he  said, 
had  joined  in  making  Trumbull  a  Senator,  from  which 
it  was  evident  that  he  was  one  of  the  same  tribe,  and  not 
a  Democrat.  So  far  as  the  people  of  Illinois  were  con 
cerned,  he  said  that  his  colleague  did  not  dare  to  go  be 
fore  them  and  take  his  chances  in  a  general  election,  for 
he  (Douglas)  had  met  him  at  Salem,  Marion  County,  in 
the  summer  of  1855,  and  had  told  him  in  the  presence  of 
thousands  of  people  that,  differing  as  they  did,  they  ought 
not  both  to  represent  the  State  at  the  same  time.  There 
fore,  he  proposed  that  they  should  both  sign  a  paper  re 
signing  their  seats  and  appeal  to  the  people,  "and  if  I  did 
not  beat  him  now  with  his  Know-Nothingism,  Abolition 
ism,  and  all  other  isms  by  a  majority  of  twenty  thousand 
votes,  he  should  take  the  seat  without  the  trouble  of  a 
contest." 

Neither  Trumbull  nor  Douglas  was  gifted  with  the 
sense  of  humor,  but  Trumbull  turned  the  laugh  on  his 
antagonist  by  his  comments  on  the  coolness  of  the  pro 
posal  that  both  Senators  should  resign  their  seats,  which 
Governor  Matteson  would  have  the  right  to  fill  imme 
diately,  and  which  the  people  could  in  no  event  fill  by  a 
majority  vote,  since  the  people  did  not  elect  Senators 
under  our  system  of  government.  The  reason  why  he  did 


THE  KANSAS  WAR  61 

not  answer  the  challenge  at  Salem  was  that  his  colleague 
did  not  stay  to  hear  the  answer.  After  he  had  finished  his 
speech  it  was  very  convenient  for  him  to  be  absent.  "He 
cut  immediately  for  his  tavern  without  waiting  to  hear 
me."  Trumbull  denominated  the  challenge  "a  bald 
clap-trap  declamation  and  nothing  else." 

Douglas's  charges  about  Know-Nothings  and  Aboli 
tionists  were  well  calculated  to  make  an  impression  in 
southern  Illinois;  hence  Trumbull  did  not  choose  to  let 
them  go  unanswered.  His  reply  was  pitched  upon  a  higher 
plane,  however,  than  his  antagonist's  tirade.  He  said: 

In  my  part  of  the  state  there  are  no  Know-Nothing  organiza 
tions  of  whose  members  I  have  any  knowledge.  If  they  exist, 
they  exist  secretly.  There  are  no  open  avowed  ones  among  us. 
These  general  charges,  as  to  matters  of  opinion,  amount  to  but 
very  little.  It  is  altogether  probable  that  the  gentleman  and 
myself  will  differ  in  opinion  not  only  upon  this  slavery  question, 
but  also  as  to  the  sentiments  of  the  people  of  Illinois.  The  views 
which  I  entertain  are  honest  ones;  they  are  the  sincere  senti 
ments  of  my  heart.  I  will  not  say  that  the  views  which  he 
entertains  in  reference  to  those  matters  are  not  equally  honest. 
I  impute  no  such  thing  as  insincerity  to  any  Senator.  Claiming 
for  myself  to  be  honest  and  sincere,  I  am  willing  to  award  to 
others  the  same  sincerity  that  I  claim  for  myself.  As  to  what 
views  other  men  in  Illinois  may  entertain  we  may  honestly 
differ.  The  views  of  the  members  of  the  legislature  may  be 
ascertained  from  their  votes  on  resolutions  before  them.  I  do 
not  know  how  to  ascertain  them  in  any  other  way.  As  for 
Abolitionists  I  do  not  know  one  in  our  state  —  one  who  wishes 
to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  states.  I  have  not  the  acquaint 
ance  of  any  of  that  class.  There  are  thousands  who  oppose  the 
breaking-down  of  a  compromise  set  up  by  our  fathers  to  pre 
vent  the  extension  of  slavery,  and  I  know  that  the  gentleman 
himself  once  uttered  on  this  floor  the  sentiment  that  he  did  not 
know  a  man  who  wished  to  extend  slavery  to  a  free  territory. 

Douglas  replied  at  length  to  Trumbull  on  the  20th  of 
March,  in  his  most  slippery  and  misleading  style.  If  it 


62  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

were  possible  to  admire  the  kind  of  argument  which  makes 
the  worse  appear  the  better  reason,  this  speech  would 
take  high  rank.  It  may  be  worth  while  to  give  a  single 
sample.  Trumbull  had  said  that  in  his  opinion  the  words 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  prohibiting  slavery  in  cer 
tain  territories  "forever,"  meant  until  the  territory  should 
be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  state  on  terms  of  equality 
with  the  other  states.  Douglas  seized  upon  this  as  a  fatal 
admission,  and  asked  why,  if  "forever"  meant  only  a  few 
years,  Trumbull  and  all  his  allies  had  been  abusing  him 
for  repealing  the  sacred  compact. 

If  so  [he  continued],  what  is  meant  by  all  the  leaders  of  that 
great  party,  of  which  he  (Trumbull)  has  become  so  prominent 
a  member,  when  they  charge  me  with  violating  a  solemn  com 
pact  —  a  compact  which  they  say  consecrated  that  territory 
to  freedom  forever?  They  say  it  was  a  compact  binding  forever. 
He  says  that  it  was  an  unfounded  assumption,  for  it  was  only 
a  law  which  would  become  void  without  even  being  repealed; 
it  was  a  mere  legislative  enactment  like  any  other  territorial 
law,  and  the  word  "forever"  meant  no  more  than  the  word 
"hereafter'*  —  that  it  would  expire  by  its  own  limitation.  If 
this  assumption  be  true,  it  necessarily  follows  that  what  he 
calls  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  no  compact  —  was  not  a 
contract  —  not  even  a  compromise,  the  repeal  of  which  would 
involve  a  breach  of  faith.1 

And  he  continued,  ringing  the  changes  on  this  alleged 
inconsistency  through  two  entire  columns  of  the  Globe, 
as  though  a  compact  could  not  be  made  respecting  a  ter 
ritory  as  well  as  for  a  state,  and  ignoring  the  fact  that  if 
slaves  were  prevented  from  coming  into  the  territory,  the 
material  for  forming  a  slave  state  would  not  exist  when 
the  people  should  apply  for  admission  to  the  Union.  If 
the  word  "forever"  had,  as  Trumbull  believed,  applied 
only  to  the  territory,  it  nevertheless  answered  all  practi- 

1  Cong.  Globe,  34th  Congress,  Appendix,  p.  281. 


THE   KANSAS  WAR  63 

cal  purposes  forever,  by  moulding  the  future  state,  as  the 
potter  moulds  the  clay.1 

The  remainder  of  Douglas's  speech  was  founded  upon 
the  doings  of  Governor  Reeder,  whom  he  first  used  to 
buttress  and  sustain  the  bogus  legislature  in  its  acts,  and 
then  turned  upon  and  rent  in  pitiable  fragments,  calling 
him  "your  Governor,"  as  though  the  Republicans  and 
not  their  opponents  had  appointed  him. 

June  9,  1856,  the  two  Senators  drifted  into  debate  on 
the  Kansas  question  again,  and  Trumbull  put  to  Doug 
las  the  question  which  Lincoln  put  to  him  with  such 
momentous  consequences  in  theFreeport  debate  two  years 
later :  whether  the  people  of  a  territory  could  lawfully  ex 
clude  slavery  prior  to  the  formation  of  a  state  constitu 
tion.  Trumbull  said  that  the  Democratic  party  was  not 
harmonious  on  this  point.  He  had  heard  Brown,  of  Missis 
sippi,  argue  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  that  slavery  could 
not  be  excluded  from  the  territories,  while  in  the  forma 
tive  condition,  by  the  territorial  legislature,  and  he  had 
heard  Cass,  of  Michigan,  maintain  exactly  the  opposite 
doctrine.  He  would  like  to  know  what  his  colleague's 
views  were  upon  that  point: 

My  colleague  [he  said]  has  no  sort  of  difficulty  in  deciding  the 
constitutional  question  as  to  the  right  of  the  people  of  a  terri 
tory,  when  they  form  their  constitution,  to  establish  or  pro 
hibit  slavery.  Now  will  he  tell  me  whether  they  have  the  right 
before  they  form  a  state  constitution?  2 

Douglas  did  not  answer  this  interrogatory.  He  insisted 
that  it  was  purely  a  judicial  question,  and  that  he  and  all 

1  In  this  debate  Clayton,  of  Delaware,  contended  that  the  word  "forever" 
was  meant  to  apply  to  any  future  political  body,  whether  territory  or  state, 
occupying  the  ground  embraced  in  the  defined  limits.  Hence  he  considered  the 
Missouri  Compromise  unconstitutional,  but  he  had  opposed  the  Nebraska  Bill 
because  he  was  not  willing  to  reopen  the  slavery  agitation.  Cong.  Globe,  34th 
Congress,  Appendix,  p.  777. 

*  Cong.  Globe,  1856,  p.  1371. 


64  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

good  Democrats  were  in  harmony  and  would  sustain  the 
decision  of  the  highest  tribunal  when  it  should  be  rendered. 
The  Dred  Scott  case  was  pending  in  the  Supreme  Court, 
but  that  fact  was  not  mentioned  in  the  debate.  The  right 
of  the  people  of  a  territory  to  exclude  slavery  before 
arriving  at  statehood  was  already  the  crux  of  the  political 
situation,  but  its  significance  was  not  generally  perceived 
at  that  time.  That  Trumbull  had  grasped  the  fact  was 
shown  by  his  concluding  remarks  in  this  debate,  to  wit : 

My  colleague  says  that  the  persons  with  whom  he  is  acting 
are  perfectly  agreed  on  the  questions  at  issue.  Why,  sir,  all  of 
them  in  the  South  say  that  they  have  a  right  to  take  their 
slaves  into  a  territory  and  to  hold  them  there  as  such,  while  all 
in  the  North  deny  it.  If  that  is  an  agreement,  then  I  do  not 
know  what  Bedlam  would  be. 

Bedlam  came  at  Charleston  four  years  later.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark  that  in  this  debate  Douglas  held  that 
a  negro  could  bring  an  action  for  personal  freedom  in  a 
territory  and  have  it  presented  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  for  decision.  In  the  Dred  Scott  case, 
subsequently  decided,  the  court  held  that  a  negro  could 
not  bring  an  action  in  a  court  of  the  United  States. 

The  Senate  debate  on  Kansas  affairs  in  the  first -session 
of  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress  was  participated  in  by 
nearly  all  the  members  of  the  body.  The  best  speech  on 
the  Republican  side  was  made  by  Seward.  This  was  a 
carefully  prepared,  farseeing  philosophical  oration,  in 
which  the  South  was  warned  that  the  stars  in  their  courses 
were  fighting  against  slavery  and  that  the  institution 
took  a  step  toward  perdition  when  it  appealed  to  lawless 
violence.  Sumner's  speech,  which  in  its  consequences 
became  more  celebrated,  was  sophomorical  and  vituper 
ative  and  was  not  calculated  to  help  the  cause  that  its 
author  espoused ;  but  the  assault  made  upon  him  by  Pres- 


THE  KANSAS  WAR  65 

ton  S.  Brooks  maddened  the  North  and  drew  attention 
away  from  its  defects  of  taste  and  judgment.  Collamer, 
of  Vermont,  made  a  notable  speech  in  addition  to  his 
notable  minority  report  from  the  Committee  on  Territo 
ries.  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Hale,  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  received  well-earned  plaudits  for  the  thoroughness 
with  which  they  exposed  the  frauds  and  violence  of  the 
Border  Ruffians,  and  commented  on  the  vacillation  and 
stammering  of  President  Pierce.  That  Trumbull  had  the 
advantage  of  his  wily  antagonist  must  be  the  conclusion 
of  impartial  readers  at  the  present  day. 

If  a  newcomer  in  the  Senate  to-day  should  plunge  in 
medias  res  and  deliver  a  three-hours'  speech  as  soon  as  he 
could  get  the  floor,  he  would  probably  be  made  aware  of 
the  opinion  of  his  elders  that  he  had  been  over-hasty. 
It  was  not  so  in  the  exciting  times  of  the  decade  before  the 
Civil  War.  All  help  was  eagerly  welcomed.  Moreover, 
Trumbull's  constituents  would  not  have  tolerated  any 
delay  on  his  part  in  getting  into  the  thickest  of  the  fight. 
Any  signs  of  hanging  back  would  have  been  construed  as 
timidity.  The  anti-Nebraska  Democrats  of  Illinois  re 
quired  early  proof  that  their  Senator  was  not  afraid  of  the 
Little  Giant,  but  was  his  match  at  cut-and-thrust  debate 
as  well  as  his  superior  in  dignity  and  moral  power.  The 
North  rang  with  the  praises  of  Trumbull,  and  some  per 
sons,  whose  admiration  of  Lincoln  was  unbounded  and 
unchangeable,  were  heard  to  say  that  perhaps  Providence 
had  selected  the  right  man  for  Senator  from  Illinois.  Al 
though  Lincoln's  personality  was  more  magnetic,  Trum 
bull's  intellect  was  more  alert,  his  diction  the  more  inci 
sive,  and  his  temper  was  the  more  combative  of  the  two. 

From  a  mass  of  letters  and  newspapers  commending 
Mr.  Trumbull  on  his  first  appearance  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate,  a  few  are  selected  for  notice. 


66  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

The  New  York  Tribune,  March  15,  1856,  Washington 
letter  signed  "H.  G.,"  p.  4,  col.  5: 

Mr.  TrumbulPs  review  of  Senator  Douglas's  pro-slavery 
Kansas  report  is  hailed  with  enthusiasm,  as  calculated  to  do 
honor  to  the  palmiest  days  of  the  Senate.  Though  three  hours 
long,  it  commanded  full  galleries,  and  the  most  fixed  attention 
to  the  close.  It  was  searching  as  well  as  able,  and  was  at  once 
dignified  and  convincing. 

When  Mr.  Trumbull  closed,  Mr.  Douglas  rose,  in  bad  tem 
per,  to  complain  that  the  attack  had  been  commenced  in  his 
absence,  and  to  ask  the  Senate  to  fix  a  day  for  his  reply.  He 
said  Mr.  Trumbull  had  claimed  to  be  a  Democrat;  but  that 
claim  would  be  considered  a  libel  by  the  Democracy  of  Illinois. 
Here  Mr.  Crittenden  rose  to  a  question  of  order,  and  a  most 
exciting  passage  ensued;  the  flash  of  the  Kentuckian's  eye  and 
the  sternness  of  his  bearing  were  such  as  are  rarely  seen  in  the 
Senate. 

The  New  York  Daily  Times,  Washington  letter,  dated 
June  9: 

Douglas  was  much  disconcerted  to-day  by  Senator  Trum- 
bull's  keen  exposure  of  his  Nebraska  sophism.  He  was  directly 
asked  if  he  believed  that  the  people  of  the  territories  have  the 
right  to  exclude  slavery  before  forming  a  state  government,  but 
he  refused  to  give  his  opinion,  saying  that  it  was  a  question  to 
be  determined  by  the  Supreme  Court.  Trumbull  then  exposed 
with  great  force  Douglas's  equivocal  platform  of  popular  sov 
ereignty,  which  means  one  thing  at  the  South  and  another 
at  the  North.  The  "Little  Giant"  was  fairly  smoked  out. 

Charles  Sumner  writes  to  E.  L.  Pierce,  March  21 : 

Trumbull  is  a  hero,  and  more  than  a  match  for  Douglas. 
Illinois,  in  sending  him,  has  done  much  to  make  me  forget  that 
she  sent  Douglas.  You  will  read  the  main  speech  which  is  able; 
but  you  can  hardly  appreciate  the  ready  courage  and  power 
with  which  he  grappled  with  his  colleague  and  throttled  him. 
We  are  all  proud  of  his  work. 

S.  P.  Chase,  Executive  Office,  Columbus,  Ohio,  April 
14,  1856,  writes: 


THE  KANSAS  WAR  67 

I  have  read  your  speech  with  great  interest.  It  was  timely  — 
exactly  at  the  right  moment  and  its  logic  and  statement  are 
irresistible.  How  I  rejoice  that  Illinois  has  sent  you  to  the 
Senate. 

John  Johnson,  Mount  Vernon,  Illinois,  writes: 
I  wish  I  could  express  the  pleasure  that  I  and  many  other  of 
your  friends  feel  when  we  remember  that  we  have  such  a  man 
as  yourself  in  Congress,  who  loves  liberty  and  truth  and  is  not 
ashamed  or  afraid  to  speak.  Let  me  say  that  I  thank  the 
Ruler  of  the  Universe  that  we  have  got  such  a  man  into  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States.  .  .  .  Your  influence  will  tell  on 
the  interests  of  the  nation  in  years  to  come. 

John  H.  Bryant,  Princeton,  writes: 

The  expectations  of  those  who  elected  Mr.  Trumbull  to  the 
Senate  have  been  fully  met  by  his  course  in  that  body,  those 
of  Democratic  antecedents  being  satisfied  and  the  Whigs  very 
happily  disappointed.  For  Mr.  Lincoln  the  people  have  great 
respect,  and  great  confidence  in  his  ability  and  integrity.  Still 
the  feeling  here  is  that  you  have  filled  the  place  at  this  particu 
lar  time  better  than  he  could  have  done.1 

At  this  time  Trumbull  received  a  letter  from  one  of  the 
Ohio  River  counties  which,  by  reason  of  the  singularity 
of  its  contents  as  well  as  of  the  subsequent  distinction  of 
the  writer,  merits  preservation : 

Green  B.  Raum,  Golconda,  Pope  Co.,  Feb.  9,  '57,  wishes 
Trumbull  to  find  out  why  he  cannot  get  his  pay  for  taking 
depositions  at  the  instance  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  in  a 
lawsuit  involving  the  freedom  of  sixty  negroes  legally  manu 
mitted,  but  still  held  in  slavery  in  Crawford  County,  Arkansas. 
The  witnesses  whose  depositions  were  taken  were  living  in  Pope 
Co.,  111.  Raum  advanced  $43.25  for  witness  fees  and  costs  and 
was  engaged  one  month  in  the  work,  for  which  he  charged 
$300.  This  was  done  in  May,  1855,  but  he  had  never  been  paid 
even  the  amount  that  he  advanced  out  of  his  own  pocket.2 

1  John  H.  Bryant,  a  man  of  large  influence  in  central  Illinois,  brother  of 
William  Cullen  Bryant. 

2  Green  B.  Raum,  Lawyer,  Democrat,  brigadier-general  in  the  Union  army 
in  the  Civil  War. 


68  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

In  April,  1857,  Trumbull  received  an  urgent  appeal  from 
Cyrus  Aldrich,  George  A.  Nourse,  and  others  in  Minne 
sota  asking  him  to  come  to  that  territory  and  make 
speeches  for  one  month  to  help  the  Republicans  carry  the 
convention  which  had  been  called  to  frame  a  state  con 
stitution.  He  responded  to  this  call  and  took  an  active 
part  in  the  campaign,  which  resulted  favorably  to  the 
Republican  party. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  LECOMPTON  FIGHT 

IN  June,  1856,  Lincoln  wrote  to  Trumbull  urging  him 
to  attend  the  Republican  National  Convention  which 
had  been  called  to  meet  in  Philadelphia  to  nominate  can 
didates  for  President  and  Vice-President  and  suggesting 
that  he  labor  for  the  nomination  of  a  conservative  man 
for  President.  Trumbull  went  accordingly  and  cooperated 
with  N.  B.  Judd,  Leonard  Swett,  William  B.  Archer,  and 
other  delegates  from  Illinois  in  the  proceedings  which  led 
up  to  the  futile  nominations  of  Fremont  and  Dayton. 
The  only  part  of  these  proceedings  which  interests  us  now 
is  the  fact  that  Abraham  Lincoln,  who  was  not  a  candi 
date  for  any  place,  received  one  hundred  and  ten  votes 
for  Vice-President.  This  result  was  brought  about  by 
Mr.  William  B.  Archer,  an  Illinois  Congressman,  who 
conceived  the  idea  of  proposing  his  name  only  a  short 
time  before  the  voting  began,  and  secured  the  coopera 
tion  of  Mr.  Allison,  of  Pennsylvania,  to  nominate  him. 
Archer  wrote  to  Lincoln  that  if  this  bright  idea  had  oc 
curred  to  him  a  little  earlier  he  could  have  obtained  a  ma 
jority  of  the  convention  for  him.  When  the  news  first 
reached  Lincoln  at  Urbana,  Illinois,  where  he  was  attend 
ing  court,  he  thought  that  the  one  hundred  and  ten  votes 
were  cast  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  of  Massachusetts. 

He  wrote  to  Trumbull  on  the  27th  saying,  "It  would 
have  been  easier  for  us,  I  think,  had  we  got  McLean" 
(instead  of  Fremont),  but  he  was  not  without  high  hopes 
of  carrying  the  state.  He  was  confident  of  electing  Bissell 


70  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

for  governor  at  all  events.  In  August,  Lincoln  wrote 
again  saying  that  he  had  just  returned  from  a  speaking 
tour  in  Edgar,  Coles,  and  Shelby  counties,  and  that  he 
had  found  the  chief  embarrassment  in  the  way  of  Repub 
lican  success  was  the  Fillmore  ticket.  "The  great  diffi 
culty,"  he  says,  "with  anti-slavery-extension  Fillmore 
men  is  that  they  suppose  Fillmore  as  good  as  Fremont  on 
that  question;  and  it  is  a  delicate  point  to  argue  them  out 
of  it,  they  are  so  ready  to  think  you  are  abusing  Mr.  Fill- 
more."  The  Fillmore  vote  in  Illinois  was  37,444. 

The  Republican  state  ticket,  headed  by  William  H. 
Bissell  for  governor,  was  elected,  but  Buchanan  and 
Breckinridge,  the  Democratic  nominees,  received  the 
electoral  vote  of  the  state  and  were  successful  in  the 
country  at  large.  The  defeat  of  Fremont  caused  intense 
disappointment  to  the  Republicans  at  the  time,  but  it 
was  fortunate  for  the  party  and  for  the  country  that  he 
was  beaten.  He  was  not  the  man  to  deal  with  the  grave 
crisis  impending.  Disunion  was  a  club  already  held  in 
reserve  to  greet  any  Republican  President.  Senator 
Mason,  of  Virginia,  frankly  said  so  to  Trumbull  in  a  Sen 
ate  debate  (December  2,  1856),  after  the  election: 

MR.  MASON:  What  I  said  was  this,  that  if  that  [Republican] 
party  came  into  power  avowing  the  purpose  that  it  did  avow, 
it  would  necessarily  result  in  the  dissolution  of  the  Union, 
whether  they  desired  it  or  not.  It  was  utterly  immaterial  who 
was  their  President;  he  might  have  been  a  man  of  straw.  I 
allude  to  the  purposes  of  the  party. 

MR.  TRUMBULL:  Why,  sir,  neither  Colonel  Fremont  nor  any 
other  person  can  be  elected  President  of  the  United  States 
except  in  the  constitutional  mode,  and  if  any  individual  is 
elected  in  the  mode  prescribed  in  the  Constitution,  is  that  cause 
for  dissolution  of  the  Union?  Assuredly  not.  If  it  be,  the  Con 
stitution  contains  within  itself  the  elements  of  its  own  destruc 
tion.1 

1  Cong.  Globe,  vol.  42,  p.  16. 


THE  LECOMPTON  FIGHT  71 

Four  years  passed  ere  Mr.  Mason's  prediction  was  put 
to  the  test,  and  the  intervening  time  was  mainly  occupied 
by  a  continuation  of  the  Kansas  strife.  The  prevailing 
gloom  in  the  Northern  mind  was  reflected  in  a  letter  writ 
ten  by  Trumbull  to  Professor  J.  B.  Turner,  of  Jackson 
ville,  Illinois,  dated  Alton,  October  19,  1857,  from  which 
the  following  is  an  extract: 

Our  free  institutions  are  undergoing  a  fearful  trial,  nothing 
less,  as  I  can  conceive,  than  a  struggle  with  those  now  in  power, 
who  are  attempting  to  subvert  the  very  basis  upon  which  they 
rest.  Things  are  now  being  done  in  the  name  of  the  Constitu 
tion  which  the  framers  of  that  instrument  took  special  pains  to 
guard  against,  and  which  they  did  provide  against  as  plainly  as 
human  language  could  do  it.  The  recent  use  of  the  army  in 
Kansas,  to  say  nothing  of  the  complicity  of  the  administration 
with  the  frauds  and  outrages  which  have  been  committed  in  that 
territory,  presents  as  clear  a  case  of  usurpation  as  could  well  be 
imagined.  Whether  the  people  can  be  waked  up  to  the  change 
which  their  government  is  undergoing  in  time  to  prevent  it,  is 
the  question.  I  believe  they  can.  I  will  not  believe  that  the  free 
people  of  this  great  country  will  quietly  suffer  their  government, 
established  for  the  protection  of  life  and  liberty,  to  be  changed 
into  a  slaveholding  oligarchy  whose  chief  object  is  the  spread 
and  perpetuation  of  negro  slavery  and  the  degradation  of  free 
white  labor. 

Soon  after  the  inauguration  of  Buchanan,  Robert  J. 
Walker,  of  Mississippi,  was  appointed  by  him  governor 
of  Kansas  Territory.  Walker  was  a  native  of  Pennsyl 
vania  and  a  man  of  good  repute.  He  had  been  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  under  President  Polk,  and  was  the  author 
of  the  Tariff  of  1846.  When  he  arrived  in  Kansas  steps 
had  already  been  taken  by  the  territorial  legislature  for 
electing  members  of  a  constitutional  convention  with  a 
view  to  admission  to  the  Union  as  a  state.  Governor 
Walker  urged  the  Free  State  men  to  participate  in  this 
election,  promising  them  fair  treatment  and  an  honest 


y 


72  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

count  of  votes;  but  they  still  feared  treachery  and  violence 
and  fraud  in  the  election  returns.  Moreover,  voters  were 
required  to  take  a  test  oath  that  they  would  support  the 
Constitution  as  framed.  As  Walker  had  assured  them 
that  the  Constitution  would  be  submitted  to  a  vote  of 
the  people,  they  decided  to  take  no  part  in  framing  it, 
but  to  vote  it  down  when  it  should  be  submitted. 

The  convention  met  in  the  territorial  capital,  Lecomp- 
ton.  While  it  was  in  session  a  regular  election  of  members 
of  the  territorial  legislature  took  place,  and  Governor 
Walker  had  so  far  won  the  confidence  of  the  Free  State 
men  that  they  took  part  in  it  and  elected  a  majority  of  the 
members  of  both  branches.  About  one  month  later  news 
came  that  the  constitutional  convention  had  completed 
its  labors  and  had  decided  not  to  submit  the  constitution 
itself  to  a  vote  of  the  people,  but  only  the  slavery  clause. 
People  could  vote  "For  the  constitution  with  slavery," 
or  "For  the  constitution  with  no  slavery,"  but  in  no  case 
should  the  right  of  property  in  slaves  already  in  the  ter 
ritory  be  questioned,  nor  should  the  constitution  itself 
be  amended  until  1864,  and  no  amendment  should  be 
made  affecting  the  rights  of  property  in  such  slaves. 

Senator  Douglas  was  in  Chicago  when  this  news  ar 
rived.  He  at  once  declared  to  his  friends  that  this  scheme 
had  its  origin  in  Buchanan's  Cabinet.  Governor  James 
W.  Geary,  Walker's  predecessor  in  office,  had  vetoed  the 
bill  calling  the  convention,  because  it  contained  no  clause 
requiring  submission  of  the  constitution  to  the  people; 
but  it  had  been  passed  over  his  veto.  He  subsequently 
said,  in  a  published  letter,  that  the  committees  of  the 
legislature  having  the  matter  in  charge  informed  him  that 
their  friends  in  the  South  did  not  desire  a  submission 
clause.  It  was  proved  later  that  a  conspiracy  with  this 
aim  existed  in  Buchanan's  Cabinet  without  his  knowl- 


THE  LECOMPTON  FIGHT  73 

edge,  and  that  the  guiding  spirit  was  Jacob  Thompson, 
of  Mississippi,  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  The  chief  man 
ager  in  Kansas  was  John  Calhoun,  the  president  of  the 
convention,  who  had  been  designated  also  as  the  canvass 
ing  officer  of  the  election  returns  under  the  submission 
clause. 

Buchanan  was  not  admitted  to  the  secret  of  the  con 
spiracy  until  the  deed  was  done.  He  had  committed  him 
self  both  verbally  and  in  writing  to  the  submission  of  the 
whole  constitution  to  the  people  for  ratification  or  re 
jection.  He  had  pledged  himself  in  this  behalf  to  Governor 
Walker,  who  had  pledged  himself  to  the  people  of  Kansas. 
Walker  kept  his  pledge,  but  Buchanan  broke  his.  He  sur 
rendered  to  the  Cabinet  cabal  and  made  the  admission  of 
Kansas  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution  the  policy  of 
his  administration.  It  proved  to  be  his  ruin,  as  an  earlier 
breach  of  promise  had  been  the  ruin  of  Pierce. 

Walker  exposed  and  denounced  the  whole  conspiracy 
and  resigned  the  governorship,  the  duties  of  which  de 
volved  upon  F.  P.  Stanton,  the  secretary  of  the  territory, 
a  man  of  ability  and  integrity,  who  had  been  a  member 
of  Congress  from  Tennessee.  Stanton  called  the  legis 
lature  in  special  session.  The  legislature  declared  for  a 
clause  for  or  against  the  constitution  as  a  whole,  to  be 
voted  on  at  an  election  to  be  held  January  4,  1858. 
Stanton  was  forthwith  removed  from  office  by  Buchanan, 
and  John  A.  Denver  was  appointed  governor  to  fill  Walk 
er's  place. 

The  stand  taken  by  Douglas  in  reference  to  the  Le 
compton  Constitution  before  the  meeting  of  Congress,  and 
the  doubts  and  fears  excited  thereby  in  the  minds  of  the 
leading  Republicans  of  Illinois,  are  indicated  in  private 
letters  received  by  Trumbull  in  that  interval,  a  few  of 
which  are  here  cited: 


74  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

E.  Peck,  Chicago,  November  23,  1857,  says:  Judge  Douglas 
takes  the  ground  openly  that  the  whole  of  the  Kansas  constitu 
tion  must  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  approval. 

C.  H.  Ray,  chief  editor  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  writes  that 
Douglas  is  just  starting  for  Washington;  he  says  that  he  sent 
a  man  to  the  Tribune  office  to  remonstrate  against  its  course 
toward  him  "while  he  is  doing  what  we  all  want  him  to  do." 
Dr.  Ray  had  no  faith  in  him. 

N.  B.  Judd,  Chicago,  November  24,  says  that  Douglas  took 
pains  to  get  leading  Republicans  into  his  room  to  tell  them 
that  he  intended  to  fight  the  administration  on  the  Kansas 
issue. 

Judd,  November  26,  writes  that  Douglas  tells  his  friends  that 
"the  whole  proceedings  in  Kansas  were  concocted  by  certain 
members  of  the  Cabinet  to  ruin  him."  He  does  not  think  that 
the  President  desires  this,  but  he  cannot  well  help  himself,  and 
the  conspirators  intend  to  use  Buchanan's  name  again  (for  the 
Presidency) . 

Lincoln  wrote  under  date,  Chicago,  Nov.  30, 1857:  .  .  .  What 
think  you  of  the  probable  "rumpus"  among  the  Democracy 
over  the  Kansas  constitution?  I  think  the  Republicans  should 
stand  clear  of  it.  In  their  view  both  the  President  and  Doug 
las  are  wrong;  and  they  should  not  espouse  the  cause  of  either 
because  they  may  consider  the  other  a  little  farther  wrong  of 
the  two.  From  what  I  am  told  here,  Douglas  tried  before  leav 
ing  to  draw  off  some  Republicans  on  the  dodge,  and  even  suc 
ceeded  in  making  some  impression  on  one  or  two. 

A.  Jonas,  Quincy,  December  5,  is  unable  to  say  whether 
Douglas  is  sincere  in  the  position  he  has  lately  taken.  "Should 
he  act  right  for  once  on  this  question,  it  will  be  with  some  selfish 
motive." 

William  H.  Bissell,  governor,  Springfield,  December  12, 
thinks  Douglas's  course  is  dictated  solely  by  his  fears  connected 
with  the  next  senatorial  election. 

S.  A.  Hurlbut,  Belvidere,  December  14,  thinks  that  as  be 
tween  Douglas  and  the  Southern  politicians  the  latter  have  the 
advantage  in  point  of  logic.  "If  the  Lecompton  Constitution 
prevails,  no  amount  of  party  discipline  will  hold  more  than  one 
third  of  the  Democratic  voters  in  Illinois."  He  predicts  that 
the  next  Democratic  National  Convention  will  endorse  John  C. 


THE  LECOMPTON  FIGHT  75 

Calhoun's  doctrine  that  slavery  exists  in  the  territories  by 
virtue  of  the  Constitution. 

Sam  Galloway,  Columbus,  Ohio,  December  12,  asks:  "What 
means  the  movement  of  Douglas?  Is  it  a  ruse  or  a  bona-fide 
patriotic  effort?  We  don't  know  whether  to  commend  or  cen 
sure,  and  we  are  without  any  knowledge  of  the  workings  of  his 
heart  except  as  indicated  in  his  speeches." 

W.  H.  Herndon,  Springfield,  December  16,  says:  "Douglas 
is  more  of  a  man  than  I  took  him  to  be.  He  has  some  nerve  at 
least.  I  do  not  think  he  is  honest  in  any  particular,  yet  in  this 
difficulty  he  is  right." 

C.  H.  Ray,  Chicago,  December  18,  asks  for  Trumbull's 
views  of  Douglas's  real  purposes:  "We  are  almost  confounded 
here  by  his  anomalous  position  and  do  not  know  how  to  treat 
him  and  his  overtures  to  the  Republican  party.    Personally,  I 
am  inclined  to  give  him  the  lash,  but  I  want  to  do  nothing  that 
will  damage  our  cause  or  hinder  the  emancipation  of  Kansas." 

John  G.  Nicolay,  Springfield,  December  20,  has  been  can 
vassing  the  state  to  procure  subscribers  for  the  St.  Louis  Demo 
crat.  He  had  very  good  success  until  the  "hard  times"  came. 
Then  he  found  it  necessary  to  suspend  operations.  He  says 
everybody  is  watching  the  political  developments  in  WTashing- 
ton,  and  he  thinks  that  Douglas  will  be  sustained  by  nearly  all 
his  party  in  Illinois.  "The  Federal  office-holders  keep  mum 
and  will  not  of  course  declare  themselves  until  they  are  forced 
to  do  so." 

Samuel  C.  Parks,  Lincoln,  Logan  County,  December  26, 
says:  Douglas  is  no  better  now  than  when  he  was  the  undis 
puted  leader  of  the  pro-slavery  party.  He  has  done  more  to 
undermine  the  principles  upon  which  this  Government  was 
founded  than  any  other  man  that  ever  lived. 

D.  L.  Phillips,  Anna,  Union  County,  March  2,  1858:  "  You 
need  not  pay  any  attention  to  the  silly  statements  of  the  Mis 
souri  Republican  and  other  sheets  respecting  this  part  of  the 
state  being  attached  to  Buchanan.    It   is  simply  false.    The 
Democracy  here  are  led  by  the  Aliens,  Marshall,  Logan,  Parrish, 
Kuykendall,  Simons,  and  others,  and  these  are  all  for  Douglas. 
John  Logan  is  bitter  against  Buchanan.    I  think  we  ought  all 
to  be  satisfied  with  the  course  of  things.    Let  the  worst  come 
now.  Better  far  than  defer  it,  for  come  it  will  and  must." 


76  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

The  first  session  of  the  Thirty-fifth  Congress  began  on 
the  7th  of  December,  1857.  President  Buchanan's  first 
message  was  largely  concerned  with  the  affairs  of  Kansas. 
He  spoke  of  the  framers  of  the  Topeka  Constitution  as  a 
"revolutionary  organization,"  and  said  that  the  Lecomp- 
ton  Constitution  was  the  work  of  the  lawfully  constituted 
authorities.  He  conceded  that  the  submission  clause  of  the 
Lecompton  instrument  fell  short  of  his  own  intentions  and 
expectations,  but  insisted  that  the  slavery  question  was 
the  only  matter  of  dispute  and  that  that  was  actually  sub 
mitted  to  the  popular  vote. 

Trumbull  was  the  first  Senator  to  expose  these  un 
founded  assumptions,  and  this  he  did  in  a  brief  argument  as 
soon  as  the  reading  of  the  message  was  finished .  He  showed, 
in  the  first  place,  that  the  Topeka  Constitution  was  no 
whit  more  "revolutionary"  or  irregular  than  the  Lecomp 
ton  one,  and  one  of  the  authorities  whom  he  cited  to  sus 
tain  his  contention  was  Buchanan  himself,  who,  in  a  paral 
lel  case,  had  contended  that  the  territorial  legislature  of 
Michigan  had  no  authority  to  call  a  convention  to  frame 
a  state  constitution,  and  that  any  such  proceeding  was 
"an  act  of  usurpation."  This  was  not  necessarily  conclu 
sive  as  to  anybody  but  Buchanan.  Yet  in  another  case 
cited,  that  of  Arkansas,  where  a  territorial  legislature  was 
considering  an  act  for  the  calling  of  a  convention  to  frame 
a  state  constitution  and  where  the  governor  had  asked 
instructions  from  President  Jackson  as  to  his  duty  in  the 
premises,  the  Attorney-General  had  held  that  such  an  act 
of  the  Legislature  would  be  without  authority  and  abso 
lutely  void.  (This  case  had  been  cited  by  Douglas  the 
previous  year,  in  an  argument  against  the  Topeka  Con 
stitution.)  The  only  regular  proceeding  was  for  Congress 
to  pass  an  enabling  act,  on  such  terms  and  conditions  as 
it  might  prescribe,  under  which  the  people  might  form  a 


THE  LECOMPTON  FIGHT  77 

constitution  preparatory  to  admission  to  the  Union. 
Any  other  mode  of  accomplishing  the  same  result, 
whether  initiated  by  a  popular  assembly,  as  at  Topeka, 
or  by  the  legislature,  as  at  Lecompton,  was  in  the  nature 
of  a  petition  which  Congress  might  respond  to  favorably, 
and  thus  legalize,  or  not.  Neither  of  these  modes  of  begin 
ning  had  any  higher  authority  than  the  other.  Therefore, 
the  underpinning  of  President  Buchanan's  first  argument 
was  knocked  out  by  two  citations  of  authority  which  he 
could  not  controvert. 

His  second  argument,  that  the  slavery  clause  in  the 
Lecompton  Constitution,  the  only  thing  in  controversy, 
was  submitted  to  the  popular  vote,  was  easily  demolished. 
The  submission  clause,  said  Mr.  Trumbull,  "amounts 
simply  to  giving  the  free  white  people  of  Kansas  a  right 
to  determine  the  condition  of  a  few  negroes  hereafter  to 
be  brought  into  the  state,  and  nothing  more;  the  condi 
tion  of  those  now  there  cannot  be  touched." 

On  the  following  day,  Senator  Douglas  made  his  speech 
against  the  Lecompton  Constitution.  It  had  been  eagerly 
expected,  and  the  galleries  and  floor  were  crowded.  From 
his  own  standpoint  it  was  a  very  strong  argument,  and 
was  received  with  vociferous  applause,  contrary  to  the 
rules  of  the  Senate.  It  left  Buchanan  with  not  a  rag  to 
cover  him.  It  was  the  first  public  speech  Douglas  had  ever 
made  which  went  counter  to  the  wishes  of  the  Southern 
people.  So  when  he  said,  -  "I  will  go  as  far  as  any  of  you 
to  save  the  party.  I  have  as  much  heart  in  the  great  cause 
that  binds  us  together  as  a  party  as  any  man  living;  I  will 
sacrifice  anything  short  of  principle  and  honor  for  the 
peace  of  the  party;  but  if  the  party  will  not  stand  by  its 
principles,  its  faith,  its  pledges,  I  will  stand  there  and 
abide  whatever  consequences  may  result  from  the  posi 
tion,"  — we  must  believe  that  he  was  sincere  and  must 


78  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

respect  him  for  his  courage.  But  his  standpoint  was  that 
of  one  who  "did  not  care  whether  slavery  was  voted  down 
or  voted  up."  It  represented  no  high  principle;  the  only 
right  he  con  tended  for  was  the  right  of  the  people  to  decide 
for  themselves  whether  they  would  have  a  particular 
banking  system,  or  none  at  all;  a  Maine  liquor  law;  or  a 
railroad  running  this  way  or  that  way;  and  finally 
whether  they  would  have  a  slave  code  or  not.  Great 
speeches  are  not  kindled  with  such  short  stubble. 

One  thing  hinted  at  in  this  speech  was  that  Buchanan 
had  been  so  frightened  by  the  revolt  in  the  party  against 
the  Lecompton  Constitution  that  he  had  taken  steps  to 
have  the  pro-slavery  clause  rejected  at  the  coming  elec 
tion,  by  the  very  people  who  had  framed  it.  "I  think  I 
have  seen  enough  in  the  last  three  days,"  he  said,  "to 
make  it  certain  that  it  will  be  returned  out,  no  matter  how 
the  vote  may  stand."  In  a  later  debate,  February  4, 
Douglas  said: 

I  made  my  objection  [against  the  Lecompton  Constitution] 
at  a  time  when  the  President  of  the  United  States  told  all  his 
friends  that  he  was  perfectly  sure  the  pro-slavery  clause  would 
be  voted  down.  I  did  it  at  a  time  when  all  or  nearly  all  the 
Senators  on  this  floor  supposed  the  pro-slavery  clause  would  be 
stricken  out.  I  assumed  in  my  speech  that  it  was  to  be  returned 
out,  and  that  the  constitution  was  to  come  here  with  that  article 
rejected.1 

If  Buchanan  had  that  intention  he  was  not  able  to  carry 
it  into  effect. 

Douglas  at  this  time  contemplated  an  alliance  with  the 
Republicans.  His  state  of  mind  is  pictured  in  a  letter 
written  by  Henry  Wilson  to  Rev.  Theodore  Parker,  dated 
Washington,  February  28,  1858,  of  which  the  following  is 
an  extract : 2 

1  Cong.  Globe,  35  th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  p.  571. 

2  Lincoln  and  Herndon,  by  Joseph  Fort  Newton,  p.  148. 


THE  LECOMPTON  FIGHT  79 

I  say  to  you  in  confidence  that  you  are  mistaken  in  regard  to 
Douglas.  He  is  as  sure  to  be  with  us  in  the  future  as  Chase, 
Seward,  or  Sumner.  I  leave  motives  to  God,  but  he  is  to  be  with 
us,  and  he  is  to-day  of  more  weight  to  our  cause  than  any  ten 
men  in  the  country.  I  know  men  and  I  know  their  power,  and 
I  know  that  Douglas  will  go  for  crushing  the  Slave  Power  to 
atoms.  To  use  his  own  words  to  several  of  our  friends  this  day 
in  a  three-hours'  consultation:  "We  must  grind  this  adminis 
tration  to  powder;  we  must  punish  every  man  who  supports 
this  crime,  and  we  must  prostrate  forever  the  Slave  Power,  which 
uses  Presidents  and  dishonors  and  disgraces  them." 

Similar  testimony  is  found  in  the  Trumbull  corres 
pondence,  to  wit: 

Jesse  K.  Dubois,  state  Auditor,  Springfield,  March  22,  1858, 
says  he  has  a  letter  from  Ray,  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  who 
says  that  Sheahan,  of  the  Times,  who  has  just  returned  to 
Washington,  say s  that  (1)  Lecomp ton  will  be  defeated;  (2)  that 
the  Republicans  shall  have  all  the  majority  they  like  in  the 
next  Illinois  legislature,  to  favor  which  he  wants  to  unite  with 
us  in  all  doubtful  counties  or  rather  help  us  by  running  Douglas 
legislative  tickets  "(N.  B.  I  do  not  see  the  point  of  this)"; 
(3)  he  concedes  us  the  Senator,  and  says  Douglas  is  willing  to 
go  into  private  life  for  a  brief  period,  but  protests  that  we  must 
not  sacrifice  their  Congressmen  who  run  again  on  the  Lecomp- 
ton  issue,  if  any  one  of  them  desires  to  go  back;  (4)  they  will 
run  candidates  for  Congress  in  every  district,  but  without  hope 
of  electing  one  in  the  four  northern  districts  "  (N.  B.  I  should 
think  this  is  an  easy  matter) ";  (5)  Douglas  is  willing  to  retire, 
and  if  he  beats  Lecompton,  to  take  his  chances  by  and  by;  (6) 
Douglas  and  his  friends  have  had  a  caucus  in  Washington  and 
they  agree  so  to  shape  matters,  if  possible,  with  Republican  aid, 
as  to  return  to  the  next  Congress  an  unbroken  phalanx  of  anti- 
Lecompton  men,  and  break  down  the  administration  by  making 
it  harmless  at  home  and  abroad;  (7)  the  fight  is  to  the  death, 
a  Voutrance,  and  cannot  be  discontinued,  no  matter  what  comes 
up.  Ray  seems  to  think  Sheahan  is  honest  in  what  he  says,  and 
has  no  doubt  that  he  speaks  for  Douglas. 

A.  Jonas,  Quincy,  April  11,  says  that  letters  have  been  re 
ceived  from  Chicago  and  Springfield  implying  that  a  coalition 


80  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

is  forming  between  a  portion  of  the  Republican  party  on  the 
one  hand  and  Douglas  and  his  followers  on  the  other.  He  pro 
tests  strongly  against  any  such  coalition  and  declares  it  can  never 
be  carried  into  effect.  "To  suppose  that  the  Republicans  of 
this  District  can  under  any  circumstances  be  induced  to  sup 
port  such  a  political  demagogue  and  trickster  as  Isaac  N.  Morris 
is  to  believe  them  capable  of  worshiping  Satan  or  submitting  to 
the  dictation  of  the  slave  oligarchy." 

W.  H.  Herndon,  Springfield,  April  12,  has  just  returned  from 
the  East.  He  speaks  of  Greeley's  "puffs"  of  Douglas,  which 
he  regards  as  demoralizing  to  the  Republicans  of  Illinois.  "I 
heard  Greeley  handled  quite  roughly  by  the  candidate  for 
lieutenant-governor  of  Wisconsin,  a  very  intelligent  German. 
He  spoke  to  Greeley  in  my  presence  and  said  that  Wisconsin 
stood  by  Illinois  and  was  not  for  sale." 

E.  Peck,  Chicago,  April  15:  "Dr.  Brainard  has  had  a  talk 
with  Dr.  Ray,  the  substance  of  which  was  that  we  should  con 
sent  to  run  Douglas  as  our  candidate  for  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  from  this  district.  What  does  this  mean?  Can 
Brainard  have  any  authority  to  make  such  a  proposition?  Ray 
has  been  advising  with  me,  and  we  are  both  in  the  clouds.  I 
requested  permission  to  write  to  you  for  your  opinion  before  any 
opinions  were  expressed  here.  Mr.  Colfax  may  be  able  to  tell 
you  something  of  the  opinions  of  Douglas.  I  am  shy  in  believing, 
and  more  shy  in  confiding,  .  .  .  yet  Ray  believes  that  Brainard 
was  authorized  by  Douglas  to  make  the  proposition." 

N.  B.  Judd,  Chicago,  April  19,  says  that  if  the  Lecompton 
Bill  is  passed,  Douglas  is  laid  on  the  shelf.  The  Buchanan  party 
in  Chicago  is  of  no  consequence,  "great  cry  and  little  wool." 
We  shall  have  to  fight  the  Democratic  party  as  a  unit.  "How 
Douglas  is  to  be  the  Democratic  party  in  Illinois  and  the  ally 
of  the  Republicans  outside  of  the  state  is  a  problem  which  those, 
who  are  arranging  with  him,  ought  to  know  how  to  work  out." 

Overtures  to  the  Republicans  of  Illinois  did  not  come 
from  Douglas  only.  Here  is  one  of  a  different  hue: 

George  T.  Brown,  Alton,  February  24,  urges  the  appoint 
ment  of  J.  E.  Starr  (Buchanan  Democrat)  as  postmaster  at 
Alton.  "Slidell  opened  the  way  for  you  to  talk  to  him  and  you 
can  easily  do  so.  The  Administration  is  very  desirous  that  you 


THE  LECOMPTON  FIGHT  81 

should  not  oppose  their  appointments,  and  will  give  you  any 
thing. 

The  foregoing  letter  betokens  a  sudden  change  of  mind 
in  administration  circles  at  Washington,  as  is  evidenced 
by  the  following  communication  which  Trumbull  had  re 
ceived  from  one  of  his  constituents  a  few  weeks  earlier: 

B.  Werner,  Caseyville,  January  4,  refers  to  a  former  letter 
enclosing  a  petition  for  the  establishment  of  a  post-office  at 
Caseyville.  Hearing  nothing  of  the  matter,  he  went  to  see 
Mr.  Armstrong,  the  postmaster  at  St.  Louis,  narrated  the  facts, 
and  asked  whether  any  order  had  been  received  by  him  respect 
ing  it.  "  He  asked  me  to  whom  I  had  sent  the  petition.  I  told 
him  to  you.  He  replied  if  I  had  sent  the  petition  to  Robert 
Smith  (Dem.  M.C.)  the  matter  would  have  been  attended  to, 
but  as  Mr.  Trumbull  was  a  Black  Republican,  the  department 
would  not  pay  any  attention  to  it." 

On  the  2d  of  February,  1858,  President  Buchanan  sent 
a  special  message  to  Congress  with  a  copy  of  the  Lecomp- 
ton  Constitution,  and  recommended  that  Kansas  be  ad 
mitted  to  the  Union  as  a  state  under  it.  In  this  message 
he  made  reference  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  had 
been  pronounced  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  previous 
March.  On  this  point  the  message  said: 

It  has  been  solemnly  adjudged  by  the  highest  tribunal 
known  to  our  laws  that  slavery  exists  in  Kansas  by  virtue  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Kansas  is,  therefore,  at 
this  moment  as  much  a  slave  state  as  Georgia,  or  South  Caro 
lina. 

Trumbull  made  a  speech  on  the  special  message  as  soon 
as  the  reading  of  it  was  finished  by  the  secretary.  He  re 
viewed  the  action  of  Governor  Walker,  which,  in  the 
beginning,  had  been  avowedly  taken  with  the  view  of  cre 
ating  and  promoting  a  Free  State  Democratic  party  in 
Kansas,  to  which  end  he  had  made  use  of  the  soldiers 
placed  at  his  disposal  by  the  President.  That  this  was 


82  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

an  act  of  usurpation  was  conclusively  shown  by  Trum- 
bull,  although  Walker  claimed  that  it  had  served  the  de 
sirable  purpose  of  preventing  an  armed  collision  between 
the  contending  factions.  Trumbull  then  touched  upon  the 
Dred  Scott  case  and  maintained  that  the  Supreme  Court 
had  likewise  usurped  authority  by  pronouncing  an  opinion 
on  a  case  not  before  it.  The  court  had  virtually  dismissed 
the  case  for  want  of  jurisdiction.  It  had  decided  that 
Dred  Scott  was  not  a  citizen  and  had  no  right  to  bring 
this  action.  There  was  no  longer  any  case  before  the 
judges  who  so  held.  "Their  opinions,"  said  Trumbull, 
"are  worth  just  as  much  as,  and  no  more  than,  the  opin 
ions  of  any  other  gentlemen  equally  respectable  in  the 
country."  Consequently,  President  Buchanan's  assertion 
that  Kansas  was  then  as  much  a  slave  state  as  Geor 
gia  or  South  Carolina  was  unfounded  and  preposterous. 
Seward,  Fessenden,  and  the  Republican  Senators  gener 
ally  held  to  this  doctrine,  but  Senator  Benjamin,  of  Lou 
isiana,  replied  with  considerable  force  that  it  was  com 
petent  for  the  court  to  decide  on  what  grounds  it  would 
give  its  decision,  and  that  it  did,  in  so  many  words,  elect 
to  decide  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories,  which 
was  the  principal  question  raised  by  the  counsel  of  Dred 
Scott.  That  the  decision  had  an  aim  different  from  the 
settlement  of  Dred  Scott's  claim,  and  that  this  aim  was 
political,  is  now  sufficiently  established.  It  is  also  estab 
lished  that  Dred  Scott  never  took  any  steps  consciously 
to  secure  freedom,  but  that  the  action  was  brought  in  his 
name  by  some  speculating  lawyers  in  St.  Louis  to  secure 
damages  or  wages  from  the  widow  of  Scott's  master,  Dr. 
Emerson.1  One  additional  fact  is  supplied  by  a  letter  in 
the  Trumbull  correspondence,  showing  how  the  money 
was  collected  to  pay  the  plaintiff's  court  costs. 

, l  Frederick  Trevor  Hill  in  Harper's  Magazine,  July,  1907. 


THE  LECOMPTON  FIGHT  83 

G.  Bailey,  Washington,  May  12,  1857,  writes,  that  when  the 
case  of  Dred  Scott  was  first  brought  to  the  notice  of  Mont 
gomery  Blair,  he  applied  to  him  (Bailey)  to  know  what  to  do. 
Blair  said  he  would  freely  give  his  services  without  charge  if 
Bailey  would  see  to  the  necessary  expenses  of  the  case.  Not 
having  an  opportunity  to  confer  with  friends,  Bailey  replied 
that  he  would  become  responsible.  He  had  no  doubt  the  neces 
sary  money  could  be  raised.  On  this  assurance  he  proceeded, 
the  case  was  tried,  and  the  result  was  before  the  country.  Mr. 
Blair  had  just  rendered  the  bill  of  costs:  $63.18  for  writ  of  error 
and  $91.50  for  printing  briefs;  total,  $154.68.  "May  I  be  so 
bold,  my  dear  sir,  as  to  ask  you  to  contribute  two  dollars 
toward  the  payment  of  this  bill.  I  am  now  writing  to  seventy- 
five  of  the  Rep.  Members  of  the  late  Congress,  and  if  they  will 
answer  me  promptly,  each  enclosing  the  quota  named,  I  can 
discharge  the  bill  by  myself  paying  a  double  share." 

Mem.-.  $2  sent  by  Trumbull  June  20th,  '57. 

The  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  Lecompton  Bill  con 
tinued  till  March  23.  The  best  speech  on  the  Republican 
side  was  made  by  Fessenden,  of  Maine,  than  whom  a  more 
consummate  debater  or  more  knightly  character  and  pre 
sence  has  not  graced  the  Senate  chamber  in  my  time,  if 
ever.  On  the  administration  side  the  laboring  oar  was 
taken  by  Toombs,  who  spoke  with  more  truculence  than 
he  had  shown  in  the  Thirty-fourth  Congress.  Jefferson 
Davis,  who  had  been  returned  to  the  Senate  after  serving 
as  Secretary  of  War  under  Pierce,  bore  himself  in  this 
debate  with  decorum  and  moderation. 

The  Lecompton  Bill  passed  the  Senate,  but  was  dis 
agreed  to  by  the  House,  and  a  conference  committee  was 
appointed  which  adopted  a  bill  proposed  by  Congress 
man  English,  of  Indiana,  which  offered  a  large  bonus  of 
lands  to  Kansas,  for  schools,  for  a  university,  and  for 
public  buildings,  if  she  would  vote  to  come  into  the  Union 
under  the  Lecompton  Constitution  now.  If  she  would  not 
so  vote,  she  should  not  have  the  lands  and  should  not 


84  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

come  into  the  Union  until  she  should  have  a  population 
sufficient  to  elect  one  member  of  Congress  on  the  ratio 
prescribed  by  law.  The  form  of  submission  to  a  popular 
vote  was  to  be:  "Proposition  accepted,"  or  "Proposition 
rejected."  If  there  was  a  majority  of  acceptances,  the 
territory  should  be  admitted  as  a  state  at  once.  Senator 
Seward  and  Representative  Howard,  Republican  mem 
bers  of  the  conference  committee,  dissented  from  the  re 
port.  This  bill  passed  the  House. 

Douglas  made  a  dignified  speech  against  the  English 
Bill,  showing  that  it  was  in  the  nature  of  a  bribe  to  the 
people  to  vote  in  a  particular  way.  Although  he  did  not 
think  that  the  bribe  would  prevail,  he  could  not  accept 
the  principle.  The  bill  nevertheless  passed  on  the  last 
day  of  April,  and  on  the  2d  of  August  the  English  propo 
sition  was  voted  down  by  the  people  of  Kansas  by  an 
overwhelming  majority.  The  Lecompton  Constitution 
thus  disappeared  from  sublunary  affairs,  and  John  Cal- 
houn  disappeared  from  Kansas  as  soon  as  steps  were 
taken  to  look  into  the  returns  of  previous  elections  can 
vassed  by  him. 

The  opinion  of  a  man  of  high  position  on  the  attitude 
of  President  Buchanan  toward  Lecomptonism  is  found  in 
another  letter  to  Trumbull: 

J.  D.  Caton,  chief  justice  of  the  supreme  court  of  Illinois, 
Ottawa,  March  6,  1858,  does  not  think  all  the  Presidents  and 
all  the  Cabinets  and  all  the  Congresses  and  all  the  supreme 
courts  and  all  the  slaveholders  on  earth,  with  all  the  constitutions 
that  could  be  drawn,  could  ever  make  Kansas  a  slave  state. 
"No,  there  has  been  no  such  expectation,  and  I  do  not  believe 
desire  on  the  part  of  the  present  administration  to  make  it  a 
slave  state,  but  as  he  [Buchanan]  had  already  been  pestered  to 
death  with  it,  he  resolved  to  make  it  a  state  as  soon  as  possible, 
and  thus  being  rid  of  it,  let  them  fight  it  out  as  they  liked.  In 
this  mood  the  Southern  members  of  the  Cabinet  found  him  when 


THE   LECOMPTON   FIGHT  85 

the  news  came  of  that  Lecompton  Constitution  being  framed, 
and  he  committed  himself,  thinking,  no  doubt,  that  Douglas 
would  be  hot  for  it  and  that  there  would  be  no  general  opposi 
tion  in  his  own  party  to  it.  ...  You  say  that  the  slave  trade  will 
be  established  in  every  state  in  the  Union  in  five  years  if  the 
Democratic  party  retains  power!  As  Butterfield  told  the  Uni- 
versalist  preacher,  who  was  proving  that  all  men  would  be 
saved,  'We  hope  for  better  things.'" 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   CAMPAIGN   OF   1858  AND   THE   JOHN   BROWN   RAID 

THE  events  described  in  the  preceding  chapter  left 
Senator  Douglas  still  the  towering  figure  in  national  poli 
tics.  Although  he  had  contributed  but  a  small  part  of  the 
votes  in  the  Senate  and  House  by  which  the  Lecompton 
Bill  had  been  defeated,  he  had  furnished  an  indispensable 
part.  He  had  humbled  the  Buchanan  administration.  He 
had  delivered  Kansas  from  the  grasp  of  the  Border  Ruf 
fians.  What  he  might  do  for  freedom  in  the  future,  if 
properly  encouraged,  loomed  large  in  the  imagination 
of  the  Eastern  Republicans.  Greeley,  Seward,  Banks, 
Bowles,  Burlingame,  Henry  Wilson,  and  scores  of  lesser 
lights  were  quoted  as  desiring  to  see  him  returned  to  the 
Senate  by  Republican  votes.  Some  were  even  willing  to 
support  him  for  the  Presidency. 

The  Republicans  of  Illinois  did  not  share  this  enthusi 
asm.  Not  only  had  they  fixed  upon  Lincoln  as  their  choice 
for  Senator,  but  they  felt  that  they  could  not  trust  Doug 
las.  He  still  said  that  he  cared  not  whether  slavery  was 
voted  down  or  voted  up.  That  was  the  very  thing  they 
did  care  about.  Could  they  assume  that,  after  being 
reflected  by  their  votes  and  made  their  standard-bearer, 
he  would  be  a  new  man,  different  from  the  one  he  had 
been  before?  And  if  he  remained  of  the  same  opinions 
as  before,  what  would  become  of  the  Republican  party? 
Who  could  answer  for  the  demoralizing  effects  of  taking 
him  for  a  leader?  The  views  of  the  party  leaders  in  Illi 
nois  are  set  forth  at  considerable  length  in  letters  received 
by  Senator  Trumbull,  the  first  one  from  Lincoln  himself: 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1858  87 

BLOOMINGTON,  December  28,  1857. 
HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL, 

DEAR  SIR:  What  does  the  New  York  Tribune  mean  by  its 
constant  eulogizing  and  admiring  and  magnifying  Douglas? 
Does  it,  in  this,  speak  the  sentiments  of  the  Republicans  at 
Washington?  Have  they  concluded  that  the  Republican  cause 
generally  can  be  best  promoted  by  sacrificing  us  here  in  Illinois? 
If  so,  we  would  like  to  know  it  soon;  it  will  save  us  a  great  deal 
of  labor  to  surrender  at  once. 

As  yet  I  have  heard  of  no  Republican  here  going  over  to 
Douglas,  but  if  the  Tribune  continues  to  din  his  praises  into  the 
ears  of  its  five  or  ten  thousand  readers  in  Illinois,  it  is  more 
than  can  be  hoped  that  all  will  stand  firm.  I  am  not  complain 
ing,  I  only  wish  for  a  fair  understanding.  Please  write  me  at 
Springfield. 

Your  obt.  servant, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

C.  H.  Ray,  Chicago,  March  9,  1858,  protests  against  any 
trading  with  Douglas  on  the  basis  of  reelecting  him  to  the 
Senate  by  Republican  votes.  The  Republicans  of  Illinois  are 
unanimous  for  Lincoln  and  will  not  swerve  from  that  purpose. 
Thinks  that  Douglas  is  coming  to  the  Republican  camp  and 
that  the  disposal  of  him  will  be  a  difficult  problem  unless  he  will 
be  content  with  a  place  in  the  Cabinet  of  the  next  Republican 
President. 

J.  K.  Dubois,  Springfield,  April  8,  says  that  Hatch  (secre 
tary  of  state)  and  himself  were  in  Chicago  a  few  days  since. 
Found  every  man  there  firm  and  true  —  Judd,  Peck,  Ray, 
Scripps,  W.  H.  Brown,  etc.  Herndon  has  just  come  home; 
says  that  Wilson,  Banks,  Greeley,  etc.,  are  for  returning  Doug 
las  to  the  Senate.  "God  forbid!  Are  our  friends  crazy?'* 

J.  M.  Palmer,  Carlinville,  May  25: 

We  feel  here  that  we  have  fought  a  strenuous  and  well-main 
tained  battle  with  Douglas,  backed  up  by  the  whole  strength  of 
the  Federal  patronage,  and  have  won  some  prospect  of  over 
throwing  him  and  placing  Illinois  permanently  in  the  ranks  of 
the  party  of  progress,  whether  called  Republican  or  by  some 
other  name,  and  now,  by  a  "Wall  street  operation,"  Lincoln, 
to  whom  we  are  all  under  great  obligations,  and  all  our  men  who 


88  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

have  borne  the  heat  and  burden  of  the  day,  are  to  be  kicked  to 
one  side  and  we  are  to  throw  up  our  caps  for  Judge  Douglas, 
and  he  very  coolly  tells  us  all  the  time  that  we  are  Abolitionists 
and  negro  worshipers  and  that  he  accepts  our  votes  as  a  favor 
to  us !  Messrs.  Greeley,  Seward,  Burlingame,  etc.,  are  presumed 
to  be  able  to  estimate  themselves  properly,  and  if  they  fix  only 
that  value  on  themselves,  no  one  has  a  right  to  complain,  but 
if  I  vote  for  Douglas  under  such  circumstances,  may  I  be  —  -  I 
don't  swear,  but  you  may  fill  this  blank  as  you  please.  Yet  I 
have  no  personal  feelings  against  Douglas.  .  .  .  Lincoln  and  his 
friends  were  under  no  obligation  to  us  in  that  controversy  [of 
1855].  We  had,  though  but  five,  refused  to  vote  for  him  under 
circumstances  that  we  thought,  at  the  time,  furnished  good 
reason  for  our  refusal.  We  elected  an  anti-Nebraska  Democrat 
to  the  Senate,  by  his  aid  most  magnanimously  rendered,  and 
that  result  placed  us,  through  you,  on  the  highest  possible 
ground  in  the  new  party.  If  you  had  not  been  elected,  we  should 
have  been  a  baffled  faction  at  the  tail  of  an  alien  organization. 
We  have,  as  a  consequence,  an  anti-Nebraska  Democrat  for 
governor,  and  our  men  are  the  bone  and  sinew  of  the  new  or 
ganization,  though  we  are  in  a  minority.  In  all  these  results 
Lincoln  has  contributed  his  efforts  and  the  Whig  element  have 
cooperated.  For  myself,  therefore,  I  am  unalterably  deter 
mined  to  do  all  that  I  can  to  elect  Lincoln  to  the  Senate.  7  can 
not  elect  him,  but  I  can  give  him  and  all  his  friends  conclusive 
proof  that  I  am  animated  by  honor  and  good  faith,  and  will 
stand  up  for  his  election  until  the  Republican  party,  including 
himself  and  his  personal  friends,  say  we  have  done  enough. 
Hence  no  arrangement  that  looks  to  the  election  of  Douglas 
by  Republican  votes,  that  does  not  meet  the  approval  of  Lin 
coln  and  his  friends,  can  meet  my  approval. 

The  chief  difficulty  was  that  Douglas  had  never  estab 
lished  for  himself  a  character  for  stability.  People  did  not 
know  what  they  could  depend  upon  in  dealing  with  him. 
Other  questions  than  Lecompton  would  soon  come  up, 
as  to  which  his  course  would  be  uncertain.  Who  could 
say  whether  he  would  look  northward  or  southward  for 
the  Presidency  two  years  hence? 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1858  89 

Douglas  knew  that  he  need  not  look  in  either  direction 
unless  he  could  first  secure  his  reelection  to  the  Senate. 
Bear-like,  tied  to  a  stake,  he  must  fight  the  course.  His 
campaign  against  Lincoln  for  the  senatorship  does  not 
properly  appertain  to  the  Life  of  Trumbull,  although  the 
latter  took  an  active  part  in  it.  The  author's  recollections 
and  memoranda  of  that  campaign  were  contributed  to 
another  publication.1  He  recalls  with  pity  the  weary  but 
undaunted  look,  after  nearly  four  months  of  incessant 
travel  and  speaking,  of  the  Little  Giant,  whose  health  was 
already  much  impaired.  A  letter  from  Fessenden  to  Trum 
bull,  dated  November  16,  1856,  spoke  of  him  as  "a  dy 
ing  man  in  almost  every  sense,  unless  he  mends  speedily 
—  of  which,  I  take  it,  there  is  little  hope."  In  the  Senate 
debates  from  1855  on,  he  often  spoke  of  his  bad  health, 
and  in  one  instance  he  got  out  of  a  sick-bed  to  vote  on 
the  Lecompton  Bill.  The  campaign  of  1858  was  a  severe 
drain  on  his  remaining  strength,  but  in  manner  and  mien 
he  gave  no  sign  of  the  waste  and  exhaustion  within. 

The  Trumbull  papers  contain  some  contemporary 
notes  on  the  campaign  of  1858.  The  Buchanan  Demo 
crats  in  Illinois  gave  themselves  the  high-sounding  title  of 
the  National  Democracy.  By  the  Douglas  men  they  were 
called  "Danites,"  a  name  borrowed  from  the  literature 
of  Mormondom.  Traces  of  this  sect  are  found  in  the  fol 
lowing  letters: 

D.  L.  Phillips,  Anna,  Union  County,  February  16,  1858, 
says  that  Hon.  John  Dougherty  will  start  in  a  few  days  for 
Washington  to  console  the  President  and  look  for  an  office  for 
himself.  (He  obtained  the  Marshalship  of  southern  Illinois.) 

W.  H.  Herndon,  Springfield,  July  8: 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  here  a  moment  ago  and  told  me  that  he  had 
1  Herndon- Weik,  Life  of  Lincoln,  2d  edition,  vol.  n,  chap.  iv. 


90  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

just  seen  Col.  Dougherty  and  had  a  conversation  with  him. 
He  told  Lincoln  that  the  National  Democracy  intended  to  run 
in  every  county  and  district,  a  National  Democrat  for  each  and 
every  office.  Lincoln  replied,  "If  you  do  this  the  thing  is  set 
tled."  .  .  .  Lincoln  is  very  certain  as  to  Miller's  and  Bate- 
man's  election  (on  the  state  ticket),  but  is  gloomy  and  rather 
uncertain  about  his  own  success. 

Lincoln's  own  thoughts  respecting  the  Danites  are  set 
forth  incidentally  in  the  following  letter: 

SPRINGFIELD,  June  23.  1858. 
HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL, 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Your  letter  of  the  16th  reached  me  only 
yesterday.  We  had  already  seen  by  telegraph  a  report  of  Doug 
las's  onslaught  upon  everybody  but  himself.  I  have  this  morn 
ing  seen  the  Washington  Union,  in  which  I  think  the  Judge  is 
rather  worsted  in  regard  to  the  onslaught. 

In  relation  to  the  charge  of  an  alliance  between  the  Republi 
cans  and  the  Buchanan  men  in  the  state,  if  being  rather  pleased 
to  see  a  division  in  the  ranks  of  Democracy,  and  not  doing  any 
thing  to  prevent  it,  be  such  an  alliance,  then  there  is  such  an 
alliance.  At  least,  that  is  true  of  me.  But  if  it  be  intended  to 
charge  that  there  is  any  alliance  by  which  there  is  to  be  any 
concession  of  principle  on  either  side,  or  furnishing  of  sinews, 
or  partition  of  offices,  or  swapping  of  votes  to  any  extent,  or 
the  doing  of  anything,  great  or  small,  on  the  one  side  for  a  con 
sideration  expressed  or  implied  on  the  other,  no  such  thing  is 
true  so  far  as  I  know  or  believe. 

Before  this  reaches  you,  you  will  have  seen  the  proceedings 
of  our  Republican  State  Convention.  It  was  really  a  grand  af 
fair  and  was  in  all  respects  all  that  our  friends  could  desire. 

The  resolution  in  effect  nominating  me  for  Senator  was 
passed  more  for  the  object  of  closing  down  upon  the  everlasting 
croaking  about  Wentworth  than  anything  else.  The  signs  look 
reasonably  well.  Our  state  ticket,  I  think,  will  be  elected 
without  much  difficulty.  But  with  the  advantages  they  have  of 
us,  we  shall  be  hard  run  to  carry  the  legislature.  We  shall  greet 
your  return  home  with  great  pleasure. 

Yours  very  truly, 

A.  LINCOLN. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1858  91 

The  only  counties  in  the  state  in  which  the  Danites 
showed  any  vitality  were  Union  County  in  the  south  and 
Bureau  County  in  the  north.  They  polled  only  5079  votes 
in  the  whole  state. 

The  influence  of  the  Eastern  Republicans,  who  were  in 
clined  to  support  Douglas  at  the  beginning  of  the  cam 
paign,  and  especially  that  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  is 
noted  by  Judd  and  Herndon. 

N.  B.  Judd,  Chicago,  July  16: 

We  have  lost  some  Republicans  in  this  region.  .  .  .  You  may 
attribute  it  to  the  course  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  which  has 
tended  to  loosen  party  ties  and  induce  old  Whigs  to  look  upon 
D.'s  return  to  the  Senate  as  rather  desirable.  You  ought  to 
come  to  Illinois  as  soon  as  you  can  by  way  of  New  York  and 
straighten  out  the  newspapers  there.  Even  the  Evening  Post 
compares  Douglas  to  Silas  Wright.  Bah! 

W.  H.  Herndon,  Springfield,  July  22: 

There  were  some  Republicans  here  —  more  than  we  had  any 
idea  of  —  who  had  been  silently  influenced  by  Greeley,  and  who 
intended  to  go  for  Douglas  or  not  take  sides  against  him.  His 
speech  here  aroused  the  old  fires  and  now  they  are  his  enemies. 
Has  received  a  letter  from  Greeley  in  which  he  says:  "Now, 
Herndon,  I  am  going  to  do  all  I  reasonably  can  to  elect  Lin 
coln." 

N.  B.  Judd,  Chicago,  December  26  (after  the  election), 
says: 

Horace  Greeley  has  been  here  lecturing  and  doing  what  mis 
chief  he  could.  He  took  Tom  Dyer  [Democrat,  ex-mayor]  into 
his  confidence  and  told  him  all  the  party  secrets  that  he  knew, 
such  as  that  we  had  been  East  and  endeavored  to  get  money 
for  the  canvass  and  that  we  failed,  etc. ;  —  a  beautiful  chap  he 
is,  to  be  entrusted  with  the  interests  of  a  party.  Lecturing  is  a 
mere  pretense.  He  is  running  around  to  our  small  towns  with 
that  pretense,  but  really  to  head  off  the  defection  from  his 
paper.  It  is  being  stopped  by  hundreds. 


92  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

A.  Jonas,  Quincy,  same  date: 

H.  Greeley  delivered  a  lecture  before  our  lyceum  last  evening 
—  a  large  crowd  to  hear  him.  John  Wood,  Browning,  myself, 
and  others  talked  to  him  very  freely  about  the  course  of  the 
Tribune  in  the  late  campaign.  He  acknowledged  we  were  right. 

The  Douglas  men  elected  a  majority  of  the  legislature, 
but  did  not  have  a  majority,  or  even  a  plurality,  of  the 
popular  vote.  So  it  appears  from  a  letter  to  Trumbull, 
the  existence  of  which  the  author  himself  had  forgotten. 

Horace  White,  Chicago,  January  10,  1859,  sends  a  table  of 
votes  cast  for  members  of  the  legislature  in  the  election  of  1858, 
showing  a  plurality  of  4191  for  Republican  candidates  for  the 
House  of  Representatives. 

W.  H.  Herndon,  Springfield,  says  that  Lincoln  was  defeated 
in  the  counties  of  Sangamon,  Morgan,  Madison,  Logan,  and 
Mason  —  a  group  of  counties  within  a  radius  of  eighty  miles 
from  the  capital.  They  were  men  from  Kentucky,  Tennessee, 
and  Virginia  mainly,  old-line  Whigs,  timid,  but  generally  good 
men,  supporters  of  Fillmore  in  the  election  of  1856.  "These 
men  must  be  reached  in  the  coming  election  of  1860.  Other 
wise  Trumbull  will  be  beaten  also." 

SPRINGFIELD,  January  29,  1859. 

HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL, 

DEAR  SIR:  I  have  just  received  your  late  speech  in  pamphlet 
form,  sent  me  by  yourself.  I  had  seen  and  read  it  before  in 
a  newspaper  and  I  really  think  it  a  capital  one.  \Vhen  you  can 
find  leisure,  write  me  your  present  impression  of  Douglas's 
movements. 

Our  friends  here  from  different  parts  of  the  state,  in  and  out 
of  the  legislature,  are  united,  resolute,  and  determined,  and  I 
think  it  almost  certain  that  we  shall  be  far  better  organized  in 
1860  than  ever  before. 

We  shall  get  no  just  apportionment  (of  legislative  districts) 
and  the  best  we  can  do  —  if  we  can  do  that  —  is  to  prevent  one 
being  made  worse  than  the  present. 

Yours  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1858  93 

A  letter  from  Lincoln  following  the  campaign  of  1858, 
is  appended  as  showing  the  cordial  relations  existing  be 
tween  himself  and  Trumbull.  The  latter  had  written  to 
him  from  Washington  under  date  January  29,  1859,  say 
ing  that  John  Wentworth  had  written  an  article,  intended 
for  publication  in  the  Chicago  Journal  (but  which  the 
editor  of  that  paper  had  refused  to  print),  imputing  bad 
faith  toward  Lincoln  on  the  part  of  N.  B.  Judd,  B.  C. 
Cook,  and  others,  including  Trumbull,  in  the  last  sena 
torial  campaign.  Trumbull  had  received  a  copy  of  this 
article,  and  as  its  object  was  to  create  enmity  between 
friends,  and  as  it  would  probably  be  published  somewhere, 
he  wished  to  assure  Lincoln  that  the  statements  and  in 
sinuations  contained  in  it  were  wholly  false.  To  this  Lin 
coln  replied  as  follows: 

SPRINGFIELD,  February  3,  1859. 
HON.  L.  TRUMBULL, 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Yours  of  the  29th  is  received.  The  article 
mentioned  by  you,  prepared  for  the  Chicago  Journal,  I  have 
not  seen;  nor  do  I  wish  to  see  it,  though  I  heard  of  it  a  month 
or  more  ago.  Any  effort  to  put  enmity  between  you  and  me  is 
as  idle  as  the  wind.  I  do  not  for  a  moment  doubt  that  you,  Judd, 
Cook,  Palmer,  and  the  Republicans  generally  coming  from  the 
old  Democratic  ranks,  were  as  sincerely  anxious  for  my  success 
in  the  late  contest  as  myself,  and  I  beg  to  assure  you  beyond  all 
possible  cavil  that  you  can  scarcely  be  more  anxious  to  be  sus 
tained  two  years  hence  than  I  am  that  you  shall  be  sustained. 
I  cannot  conceive  it  possible  for  me  to  be  a  rival  of  yours  or 
to  take  sides  against  you  in  favor  of  any  rival.  Nor  do  I  think 
there  is  much  danger  of  the  old  Democratic  and  Whig  elements 
of  our  party  breaking  into  opposing  factions.  They  certainly 
shall  not  if  I  can  prevent  it. 

Yours  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

Twenty  days  after  this  letter  was  penned,  there  was  a 
debate  in  the  Senate  which  was  an  echo  of  the  Illinois 


94  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

campaign,  which  must  have  been  extremely  interesting 
to  both  Lincoln  and  Trumbull.  In  a  debate  with  Douglas 
in  1856,  as  already  noted,  Trumbull  had  asked  him 
whether,  under  his  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty,  the 
people  could  prohibit  slavery  in  a  territory  before  they 
came  to  form  a  state  constitution.  He  replied  that  that 
was  a  judicial  question  to  be  settled  by  the  courts,  and 
that  all  good  Democrats  would  bow  to  the  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  whenever  it  should  be  made.  At  Freeport, 
in  the  campaign  of  1858,  Lincoln  put  the  same  question 
to  him  in  a  slightly  different  form. 

On  the  23d  of  February,  1859,  there  was  a  Senate  de 
bate  on  this  question,  in  which  Douglas  contended  that 
the  Democratic  party,  by  supporting  General  Cass  in 
1848,  had  endorsed  the  same  opinion  that  he  (Douglas) 
had  maintained  at  Freeport,  since  Cass,  in  his  so-called 
"Nicholson  Letter,"  had  affirmed  the  doctrine  of  squatter 
sovereignty  as  to  slavery  in  the  territories.  Douglas  now 
contended  that  every  Southern  state  that  gave  its  elec 
toral  vote  to  Cass,  including  Mississippi,  was  committed 
to  the  doctrine  that  the  people  of  a  territory  could  law 
fully  exclude  slavery  while  still  in  a  territorial  condition. 
Jefferson  Davis  replied: 

The  State  of  Mississippi  voted  [in  1848]  under  the  belief  that 
that  letter  meant  no  more  than  that  when  the  territory  became 
a  state,  it  had  authority  to  decide  that  question.  ...  If  it  had 
been  known  that  the  venerable  candidate  then  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party,  and  now  Secretary  of  State,  held  the  opinion  which 
he  so  frankly  avowed  at  a  subsequent  period  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate,  I  tell  you,  sir  [addressing  Douglas],  he  would  have  had 
no  more  chance  to  get  the  vote  of  Mississippi  than  you  with 
your  opinions  would  have  to-day.1 

1  When  Lincoln,  at  the  Freeport  debate,  asked  Douglas  whether  the  people 
of  a  territory  could  in  any  lawful  way  exclude  slavery  from  their  limits  prior  to 
the  formation  of  a  state  constitution,  Douglas  replied  that  Lincoln  had  heard 
him  answer  that  question  "a  hundred  times  from  every  stump  in  Illinois."  He 


THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1858  95 

On  the  2d  of  February,  1860,  Davis  introduced  a  series 
of  resolutions  in  the  Senate  of  a  political  character  evi 
dently  intended  to  head  off  Douglas  at  the  coming  Charles 
ton  Convention;  or,  failing  that,  to  pave  the  way  for  the 
withdrawal  of  the  delegates  of  the  cotton-growing  states. 
The  fourth  resolution  was  directed  against  the  Douglas 
doctrine  of  unfriendly  legislation,  thus: 

Resolved,  That  neither  Congress  nor  a  territorial  legislature, 
whether  by  direct  legislation  or  legislation  of  indirect  and  un 
friendly  nature,  possesses  the  power  to  annul  or  impair  the  con 
stitutional  right  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  to  take  his 
slave  property  into  the  common  territories;  but  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  Federal  Government  there  to  afford  for  that,  as  for  other 
species  of  property,  the  needful  protection;  and  if  experience 
should  at  any  time  prove  that  the  judiciary  does  not  possess 
power  to  insure  adequate  protection,  it  will  then  become  the 
duty  of  Congress  to  supply  such  deficiency. 

The  Senate  debate  between  Douglas  and  his  Southern 
antagonists  was  resumed  in  May,  after  the  explosion  of 
the  Charleston  Convention.  Douglas  made  a  two  days' 
speech  (May  15  and  16)  occupying  four  hours  each  day, 
but  did  not  mention  the  subject  of  unfriendly  legislation, 
or  show  how  a  territorial  legislature  could  nullify  or  cir 
cumvent  the  Dred  Scott  decision.  He  was  answered  by 
Benjamin,  of  Louisiana,  in  a  speech  which  made  a  sen- 

certainly  had  answered  it  more  than  once,  and  his  answer  had  been  published 
without  attracting  attention  or  comment  either  North  or  South.  On  the  16th  of 
July,  1858,  six  weeks  before  the  Freeport  joint  debate,  he  spoke  at  Blooming- 
ton,  and  there  announced  and  affirmed  the  doctrine  of  "unfriendly  legislation" 
as  a  means  of  excluding  slavery  from  the  territories.  Lincoln  was  one  of  the 
persons  present  when  this  speech  was  delivered.  On  the  next  day,  Douglas 
spoke  at  Springfield  and  repeated  what  he  had  said  at  Bloomington.  Both  of 
these  speeches  were  published  in  the  Illinois  State  Register  of  July  19,  yet  the 
fact  was  not  perceived,  either  by  Lincoln  himself,  or  by  any  of  the  lynx-eyed 
editors  and  astute  political  friends  who  labored  to  prevent  him  from  asking 
Douglas  the  momentous  question.  Nor  did  the  Southern  leaders  seem  to  be 
aware  of  Douglas's  views  on  this  question  until  they  learned  it  from  the 
Freeport  debate. 


96  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

sation  throughout  the  country,  and  in  which  the  doctrine 
of  unfriendly  legislation  was  mauled  to  tatters.  Benja 
min  was  the  first  Southern  statesman  to  make  his  bow  to 
the  rising  fame  of  Lincoln.  After  examining  the  Freeport 
debate,  he  said: 

We  accuse  him  [Douglas]  for  this,  to- wit:  that,  having  bar 
gained  with  us  upon  a  point  upon  which  we  were  at  issue,  that 
it  should  be  considered  a  judicial  question;  that  he  would  abide 
the  decision;  that  he  would  act  under  the  decision  and  con 
sider  it  a  doctrine  of  the  party;  that,  having  said  that  to  us  here 
in  the  Senate,  he  went  home,  and  under  the  stress  of  a  local 
election  his  knees  gave  way;  his  whole  person  trembled.  His 
adversary  stood  upon  principle  and  was  beaten,  and  lo,  he  is 
the  candidate  of  a  mighty  party  for  Presidency  of  the  United 
States.  The  Senator  from  Illinois  faltered ;  he  got  the  prize  for 
which  he  faltered,  but  lo,  the  prize  of  his  ambition  slips  from 
his  grasp,  because  of  the  faltering  which  he  paid  as  the  price 
of  the  ignoble  prize  —  ignoble  under  the  circumstances  under 
which  he  obtained  it.1 

There  are  scores  of  letters  in  Trumbull's  correspond 
ence  calling  for  copies  of  Benjamin's  speech,  yet  it  had  no 
effect  in  Illinois,  the  Danite  vote  being  smaller  in  1860 
than  it  had  been  in  1858.  Probably  it  had  influence  in 
the  National  Democratic  Convention  at  Charleston,  from 
w^hich  the  delegates  from  ten  Southern  States  seceded  in 
whole  or  part  when  the  Douglas  platform  was  adopted. 
This  split  was  followed  by  an  adjournment  to  Baltimore, 
where  a  second  split  took  place,  Douglas  being  nominated 
by  one  faction  and  Breckinridge,  of  Kentucky,  by  the 
other. 

Fifty  years  have  passed  since  John  Brown,  with  twenty- 
one  men,  seized  the  Government  armory  and  arsenal  at 
Harper's  Ferry  (October  16, 1859),  in  an  attempt  to  abol- 

1  Cong.  Globe,  36th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  p.  2241. 


THE  JOHN   BROWN  RAID  97 

ish  slavery  in  the  United  States.  As  sinews  of  war,  he 
had  about  four  thousand  dollars,  or  dollars'  worth  of 
material  of  one  kind  and  another.  With  such  resources  he 
expected  to  do  something  which  the  Government  itself, 
with  more  than  a  million  trained  soldiers,  five  hundred 
warships,  and  three  billions  of  dollars,  acccomplished  with 
difficulty  at  the  end  of  a  four  years'  war,  during  which  no 
negro  insurrection,  large  or  small,  took  place.  One  might 
think  that  the  scheme  itself  was  evidence  of  insanity.  But 
to  prove  Brown  insane  on  this  ground  alone,  we  must 
convict  also  the  persons  who  plotted  and  cooperated  with 
him  and  who  furnished  him  money  and  arms,  knowing 
what  he  intended  to  do  with  them.  Some  of  these  were 
men  of  high  intelligence  who  are  still  living  without  strait- 
jackets,  and  it  is  not  conceivable  that  they  aided  and 
abetted  him  without  first  estimating,  as  well  as  they  were 
able,  the  chances  of  success.  Yet  Brown  refused  to  allow 
his  counsel  to  put  in  a  plea  of  insanity  on  his  trial,  saying 
that  he  was  no  more  insane  then  than  he  had  been  all  his 
life,  which  was  probably  true.  If  he  was  not  insane  at  the 
time  of  the  Pottawatomie  massacre,  he  was  a  murderer 
who  forfeited  his  own  life  five  times  in  one  night  by  taking 
that  number  of  lives  of  his  fellow  men  in  cold  blood. 

I  saw  and  talked  with  Brown  perhaps  half  a  dozen 
times  at  Chicago  during  his  journeys  to  and  from  Kansas. 
He  impressed  me  then  as  a  religious  zealot  of  the  Old 
Testament  type,  believing  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures  and  in  himself  as  a  competent  interpreter 
thereof.  But  the  text  "Vengeance  is  mine,  saith  the  Lord, 
I  will  repay,"  never  engaged  his  attention.  He  was  op 
pressed  with  no  doubts  about  anything,  least  of  all  about 
his  own  mission  in  the  world.  His  mission  was  to  bring 
slavery  to  an  end,  but  that  was  a  subject  that  he  did  not 
talk  about.  He  was  a  man  of  few  words,  and  was  extremely 


98  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

reticent  about  his  plans,  even  those  of  ordinary  move 
ments  in  daily  life.  He  had  a  square  jaw,  clean-shaven, 
and  an  air  of  calmness  and  self-confidence,  which  at 
tracted  weaker  intellects  and  gave  him  mastery  over 
them.  He  had  steel-gray  eyes,  and  steel-gray  hair,  close- 
cropped,  that  stood  stiff  on  his  head  like  wool  cards, 
giving  him  an  aspect  of  invincibleness.  When  he  applied 
to  the  National  Kansas  Committee  for  the  arms  in  their 
possession  after  the  Kansas  war  was  ended,  he  was  asked 
by  Mr.  H.  B.  Hurd,  the  secretary,  what  use  he  intended 
to  make  of  them.  He  refused  to  answer,  and  his  request 
was  accordingly  denied.  The  arms  were  voted  back  to  the 
Massachusetts  men  who  had  contributed  them  originally. 
Brown  obtained  an  order  for  them  from  the  owners. 

The  Thirty-sixth  Congress  met  on  the  5th  of  December, 
1859.  The  first  business  introduced  in  the  Senate  was  a 
resolution  from  Mason,  of  Virginia,  calling  for  the  ap 
pointment  of  a  committee  to  inquire  into  the  facts  at 
tending  John  Brown's  invasion  and  seizure  of  the  arsenal 
at  Harper's  Ferry.  Trumbull  offered  an  amendment  pro 
posing  that  a  similar  inquiry  be  made  in  regard  to  the  seiz 
ure  in  December,  1855,  of  the  United  States  Arsenal  at 
Liberty,  Missouri,  and  the  pillage  thereof  by  a  band  of 
Missourians,  who  were  marching  to  capture  and  control 
the  ballot-boxes  in  Kansas.  On  the  following  day  Trum 
bull  made  a  brief  speech  in  support  of  his  amendment, 
in  the  course  of  which  he  commented  on  the  Harper's 
Ferry  affair  in  words  which  have  never  faded  from  the 
memory  of  the  present  writer.  Nobody  during  the  inter 
vening  half-century  has  summed  up  the  moral  and  legal 
aspects  of  the  John  Brown  raid  more  truly  or  more  for 
cibly.  He  said : 

I  hope  this  investigation  will  be  thorough  and  complete.  I 
believe  it  will  do  good  by  disabusing  the  public  mind,  in  that 


THE  JOHN   BROWN  RAID  99 

portion  of  the  Union  which  feels  most  sensitive  upon  this  subject, 
of  the  idea  that  the  outbreak  at  Harper's  Ferry  received  any 
countenance  or  support  from  any  considerable  number  of  per 
sons  in  any  portion  of  this  Union.  No  man  who  is  not  prepared 
to  subvert  the  Constitution,  destroy  the  Government,  and  re 
solve  society  into  its  original  elements,  can  justify  such  an  act. 
No  matter  what  evils,  either  real  or  imaginary,  may  exist  in  the 
body  politic,  if  each  individual,  or  every  set  of  twenty  indi 
viduals,  out  of  more  than  twenty  millions  of  people,  is  to  be 
permitted,  in  his  own  way  and  in  defiance  of  the  laws  of  the 
land,  to  undertake  to  correct  those  evils,  there  is  not  a  govern 
ment  on  the  face  of  the  earth  that  could  last  a  day.  And  it 
seems  to  me,  sir,  that  those  persons  who  reason  only  from  ab 
stract  principles  and  believe  themselves  justifiable  on  all  occa 
sions,  and  in  every  form,  in  combating  evil  wherever  it  exists, 
forget  that  the  right  which  they  claim  for  themselves  exists 
equally  in  every  other  person.  All  governments,  the  best  which 
have  been  devised,  encroach  necessarily  more  or  less  on  the 
individual  rights  of  man  and  to  that  extent  may  be  regarded 
as  evils.  Shall  we,  therefore,  destroy  Government,  dissolve  so 
ciety,  destroy  regulated  and  constitutional  liberty,  and  inau 
gurate  in  its  stead  anarchy  —  a  condition  of  things  in  which 
every  man  shall  be  permitted  to  follow  the  instincts  of  his  own 
passions,  or  prejudices,  or  feelings,  and  where  there  will  be  no 
protection  to  the  physically  weak  against  the  encroachments  of 
the  strong?  Till  we  are  prepared  to  inaugurate  such  a  state 
as  this,  no  man  can  justify  the  deeds  done  at  Harper's  Ferry. 
In  regard  to  the  misguided  man  who  led  the  insurgents  on  that 
occasion,  I  have  no  remarks  to  make.  He  has  already  expiated 
upon  the  gallows  the  crime  which  he  committed  against  the 
laws  of  his  country;  and  to  answer  for  his  errors,  or  his  virtues, 
whatever  they  may  have  been,  he  has  gone  fearlessly  and  will 
ingly  before  that  Judge  who  cannot  err;  there  let  him  rest. 

The  debate  continued  several  days  and  took  a  pretty 
wide  range,  the  leading  Senators  on  both  sides  taking  part 
in  it.  Trumbull  bore  the  brunt  of  it  on  the  Republican 
side,  and  was  cross-examined  in  courteous  but  searching 
terms  by  Yulee,  of  Florida,  Chesnut,  of  South  Carolina, 


100  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

and  Clay,  of  Alabama,  who  conceived  that  the  teachings 
of  the  Republican  party  tended  to  produce  such  char 
acters  as  John  Brown.  Trumbull  answered  all  their 
queries  promptly,  fully,  and  satisfactorily  to  his  political 
friends,  if  not  to  his  questioners.  Nothing  in  his  senatorial 
career  brought  him  more  cordial  letters  of  approval  than 
this  debate.  One  such  came  from  Lincoln: 

SPRINGFIELD,  December  25,  1859. 

HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL, 

DEAR  SIR:  I  have  carefully  read  your  speech,  and  I  judge 
that,  by  the  interruptions,  it  came  out  a  much  better  speech 
than  you  expected  to  make  when  you  began.  It  really  is  an 
excellent  one,  many  of  the  points  being  most  admirably  made. 

I  was  in  the  inside  of  the  post-office  last  evening  when  a  mail 
came  bringing  a  considerable  number  of  your  documents,  and 
the  postmaster  said  to  me:  "These  will  be  put  in  the  boxes,  and 
half  will  never  be  called  for.  If  Trumbull  would  send  them  to 
me,  I  would  distribute  a  hundred  where  he  will  get  ten  distrib 
uted  this  way."  I  said:  "Shall  I  write  this  to  Trumbull?"  He 
replied:  "If  you  choose  you  may."  I  believe  he  was  sincere, 
but  you  will  judge  of  that  for  yourself. 

Yours  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

The  next  in  chronological  order  of  the  letters  of  Lin 
coln  to  Trumbull  is  the  following: 

SPRINGFIELD,  March  16,  1860. 
HON.  L.  TRUMBULL, 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  When  I  first  saw  by  the  dispatches  that 
Douglas  had  run  from  the  Senate  while  you  were  speaking,  I 
did  not  quite  understand  it;  but  seeing  by  the  report  that  you 
were  cramming  down  his  throat  that  infernal  stereotyped  lie 
of  his  about  "negro  equality,"  the  thing  became  plain. 

Another  matter;  our  friend  Delahay  wants  to  be  one  of  the 
Senators  from  Kansas.  Certainly  it  is  not  for  outsiders  to  ob 
trude  their  interference.  Delahay  has  suffered  a  great  deal  in 
our  cause  and  been  very  faithful  to  it,  as  I  understand.  He  writes 
me  that  some  of  the  members  of  the  Kansas  legislature  have 


THE  JOHN  BROWN  RAID  101 

written  you  in  a  way  that  your  simple  answer  might  help  him. 
I  wish  you  would  consider  whether  you  cannot  assist  that  far, 
without  impropriety.  I  know  it  is  a  delicate  matter;  and  I  do 
not  wish  to  press  you  beyond  your  own  judgment. 

Yours  as  ever, 

A.   LINCOLN.1 

1  The  manuscript  of  the  foregoing  letter  is  in  the  Lambert  collection  of 
Lincolniana.  The  two  following  which  relate  also  to  Delahay's  senatorial  aspi 
rations,  are  in  the  collection  of  Jesse  W.  Weik,  of  Greencastle,  Ind.: 

SPRINGFIELD,  October  17,  1859. 

DEAR  DELAHAY:  Your  letter  requesting  me  to  drop  a  line  in  your  favor  to 
Gen.  Lane  was  duly  received.  I  have  thought  it  over,  and  concluded  it  is  not 
the  best  way.  Any  open  attempt  on  my  part  would  injure  you;  and  if  the 
object  merely  be  to  assure  Gen.  Lane  of  my  friendship  for  you,  show  him  the 
letter  herewith  enclosed.  I  never  saw  him,  or  corresponded  with  him;  so  that  a 
letter  directly  from  me  to  him,  would  run  a  great  hazard  of  doing  harm  to  both 
you  and  me. 

As  to  the  pecuniary  matter,  about  which  you  formerly  wrote  me,  I  again 
appealed  to  our  friend  Turner  by  letter,  but  he  never  answered.  I  can  but 
repeat  to  you  that  I  am  so  pressed  myself,  as  to  be  unable  to  assist  you,  unless  I 
could  get  it  from  him. 

Yours  as  ever, 
(Enclosure)  A.  LINCOLN. 

SPRINGFIELD,  October  17,  1859. 
M.  W.  DELAHAY,  ESQ., 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  I  hear  your  name  mentioned  for  one  of  the  seats  in  the  U.S. 
Senate  from  your  new  state.  I  certainly  would  be  gratified  with  your  success; 
and  if  there  was  any  proper  way  for  me  to  give  you  a  lift,  I  would  certainly  do 
it.  But,  as  it  is,  I  can  only  wish  you  well.  It  would  be  improper  for  me  to 
interfere;  and  if  I  were  to  attempt  it,  it  would  do  you  harm. 

Your  friend,  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 
P.S.  Is  not  the  election  news  glorious? 

We  shall  hear  of  Delahay  again. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   ELECTION   OF   LINCOLN  —  SECESSION 

THE  nomination  of  Lincoln  for  President  by  the  Re 
publican  National  Convention  in  1860  was  a  rather  im 
promptu  affair.  In  the  years  preceding  1858  he  had  not 
been  accounted  a  party  leader  of  importance  in  national 
politics.  The  Republican  party  was  still  inchoate.  Seward 
and  Chase  were  its  foremost  men.  Next  to  them  in  rank 
were  Sumner,  Fessenden,  Hale,  Collamer,  Wade,  Banks, 
and  Sherman.  Lincoln  was  not  counted  even  in  the  second 
rank  until  after  the  joint  debates  with  Douglas.  Atten 
tion  was  riveted  upon  him  because  his  antagonist  was  the 
most  noted  man  of  the  time.  After  the  contest  of  1858  was 
ended,  although  ended  in  defeat,  Lincoln  was  certainly 
elevated  in  public  estimation  to  a  good  place  in  the  second 
rank  of  party  leadership.  It  was  not  until  the  beginning 
of  1860,  however,  that  certain  persons  in  Illinois  began  to 
think  of  him  as  a  possible  nominee  for  the  Presidency. 
Lincoln  did  not  think  of  himself  in  that  light  until  the 
month  of  March,  about  ten  weeks  before  the  convention 
met.  His  estimate  of  his  own  chances  was  sufficiently 
modest,  and  even  that  was  shared  by  few.  After  the  event 
his  nomination  was  seen  to  have  been  a  natural  conse 
quence  of  preexisting  facts.  Seward  was  the  logical  can 
didate  of  the  party  if,  upon  a  comparison  of  views,  it  were 
believed  that  he  could  be  elected.  One  third  of  the  dele 
gates  of  Illinois  desired  his  nomination  and  intended  to 
vote  for  him  after  a  few  complimentary  votes  for  Lincoln. 

There  were  some  indispensable  states,  however,  which, 
many  people  believed,  Seward  could  not  carry.  In  Penn- 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    103 

sylvania,  Indiana,  New  Jersey,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode 
Island  he  was  accounted  too  radical  for  the  temper  of  the 
electors.  Illinois  was  reckoned  by  Trumbull  and  other 
experienced  politicians  as  doubtful  if  Seward  should  be  the 
standard-bearer.  A  conservative  candidate  of  good  re 
pute,  and  sufficiently  well  known  to  the  public,  seemed  to 
be  a  desideratum.  Nobody  had  as  yet  thought  of  seeking 
a  radical  candidate,  who  was  generally  reputed  to  be  a 
conservative.  Bates,  of  Missouri,  and  McLean,  of  Ohio, 
were  the  men  most  talked  about  by  those  who  hesitated 
to  take  Seward.  McLean  was  a  judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court  appointed  by  President  Jackson.  He  had  been 
Postmaster-General  under  Monroe  and  John  Quincy 
Adams,  and  was  now  seventy-five  years  of  age.  Trumbull 
considered  him  the  safest  candidate,  for  vote-getting  pur 
poses,  as  regarded  Illinois,  if  Lincoln  were  not  nominated. 
In  a  letter  dated  April  7,  Lincoln  had  said  that  "if  Mc 
Lean  were  ten  years  younger  he  would  be  our  best  can 
didate."  Bates  was  regarded  by  both  Lincoln  and  Trum 
bull  as  a  fairly  good  candidate,  but  Trumbull  had  been 
advised  by  Koerner,  the  most  influential  German  in  Illi 
nois,  that  Bates  could  not  command  the  German  vote. 
Koerner  had  said  also  (in  a  letter  dated  March  15)  that 
he  had  made  himself  acquainted  with  the  contents  of 
more  than  fifty  German  Republican  newspapers  in  the 
United  States  and  had  found  that  they  were  nearly  unan 
imous  for  Seward,  or  Fremont,  as  first  choice,  but  that 
they  would  cordially  support  Lincoln  or  Chase. 

On  the  24th  of  April,  Trumbull  wrote  to  Lincoln  in 
reference  to  the  Chicago  nomination.  He  said  that  his 
own  impression  was  that,  as  between  Lincoln  and  Seward, 
the  latter  would  have  the  larger  number  of  delegates  and 
would  be  likely  to  succeed ;  and  that  this  was  the  prevailing 
belief  in  Washington,  even  among  those  who  did  not  want 


104  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Seward  nominated.  He  was  also  of  the  opinion  that 
Seward  could  not  be  elected  if  nominated.  The  Congress 
men  from  the  doubtful  states  were  generally  of  that 
opinion,  and  his  own  correspondence  from  central  and 
southern  Illinois  pointed  the  same  way.  The  next  ques 
tion  was  whether  the  nomination  of  Seward  could  be  pre 
vented.  It  was  Trumbull's  opinion  that  McLean  was  the 
only  man  who  could  succeed  in  the  convention  as  against 
Seward,  and  he  could  do  so  only  as  a  compromise  candi 
date,  beginning  with  a  few  votes,  but  being  the  second 
choice  of  a  sufficient  number  to  outvote  Seward  in  the 
end.  As  to  Lincoln's  chances  he  said : 

Now  I  wish  you  to  understand  that  I  am  for  you  first  and 
foremost,  and  want  our  state  to  send  not  only  delegates  in 
structed  in  your  favor,  but  your  friends,  who  will  stand  by  you 
and  nominate  you  if  possible,  never  faltering  unless  you  your 
self  shall  so  advise. 

In  conclusion  he  asked  Lincoln's  opinion  about  Mc 
Lean.  Lincoln  replied  in  the  following  letter: 

SPRINGFIELD,  April  29,  1860. 
HON.  L.  TRUMBULL, 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Yours  of  the  24th  was  duly  received,  and  I 
have  postponed  answering  it,  hoping  by  the  result  at  Charles 
ton,  to  know  who  is  to  lead  our  adversaries,  before  writing. 
But  Charleston  hangs  fire,  and  I  wait  no  longer. 

As  you  request,  I  will  be  entirely  frank.  The  taste  is  in  my 
mouth  a  little;  and  this,  no  doubt,  disqualifies  me,  to  some  ex 
tent,  to  form  correct  opinions.  You  may  confidently  rely,  how 
ever,  that  by  no  advice  or  consent  of  mine  shall  my  pretensions 
be  pressed  to  the  point  of  endangering  our  common  cause. 

Now  as  to  my  opinion  about  the  chances  of  others  in  Illinois, 
I  think  neither  Seward  nor  Bates  can  carry  Illinois  if  Douglas 
shall  be  on  the  track;  and  that  either  of  them  can,  if  he  shall 
not  be.  I  rather  think  McLean  could  carry  it,  with  Douglas 
on  or  off.  In  other  words,  I  think  McLean  is  stronger  in  Illi 
nois,  taking  all  sections  of  it,  than  either  Seward  or  Bates,  and 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION     105 

I  think  Seward  the  weakest  of  the  three.  I  hear  no  objection 
to  McLean,  except  his  age,  but  that  objection  seems  to  occur 
to  every  one,  and  it  is  possible  it  might  leave  him  no  stronger 
than  the  others.  By  the  way,  if  we  should  nominate  him,  how 
should  we  save  ourselves  the  chance  of  filling  his  vacancy  in  the 
court?  Have  him  hold  on  up  to  the  moment  of  his  inauguration? 
Would  that  course  be  no  drawback  upon  us  in  the  canvass? 

Recurring  to  Illinois,  we  want  something  quite  as  much  as, 
and  which  is  harder  to  get  than,  the  electoral  vote,  —  the  legis 
lature,  —  and  it  is  exactly  on  this  point  that  Seward's  nomina 
tion  would  be  hard  on  us.  Suppose  he  should  gain  us  a  thou 
sand  votes  in  Winnebago,  it  would  not  compensate  for  the  loss 
of  fifty  in  Edgar. 

A  word  now  for  your  own  special  benefit.  You  better  write 
no  letter  which  can  be  distorted  into  opposition,  or  quasi-oppo- 
sition,  to  me.  There  are  men  on  the  constant  watch  for  such 
things,  out  of  which  to  prejudice  my  peculiar  friends  against 
you.  While  I  have  no  more  suspicion  of  you  than  I  have  of  my 
best  friend  living,  I  am  kept  in  a  constant  struggle  against  ques 
tions  of  this  sort.  I  have  hesitated  some  to  write  this  para 
graph,  lest  you  should  suspect  I  do  it  for  my  own  benefit  and 
not  for  yours,  but  on  reflection  I  conclude  you  will  not  suspect 
me.  Let  no  eye  but  your  own  see  this  —  not  that  there  is  any 
thing  wrong  or  even  ungenerous  in  it,  but  it  would  be  miscon 
strued. 

Your  friend  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

What  happened  in  the  Chicago  Convention  was  widely 
different  from  the  conjectures  of  these  writers,  but  the  re 
sult  seemed  entirely  reasonable  after  it  was  reached.  Lin 
coln  was  as  radical  as  Seward  —  subsequent  events  proved 
him  to  be  more  so  —  but  his  tone  and  temper  had  been 
more  conservative,  more  sedative,  more  sympathetic 
toward  "our  Southern  brethren,"  as  he  often  called  them. 
He  had  never  endorsed  the  "higher-law  doctrine,"  with 
which  Seward's  name  was  associated;  he  believed  that 
the  South  was  entitled,  under  the  Constitution,  to  an 


106  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

efficient  Fugitive  Slave  Law;  he  had  never  incurred  the 
enmity,  as  Seward  had,  of  the  Fillmore  men,  or  of  the 
American  party. 

These  facts,  coupled  with  some  personal  contact  and 
neighborliness,  early  attracted  the  conservative  dele 
gates  of  Indiana.  Seward,  with  his  "irrepressible  conflict" 
speech,  had  been  too  strong  a  dose  for  them,  but  they  were 
quite  willing  to  take  Lincoln,  whose  phrase,  "the  house 
divided  against  itself,"  had  preceded  the  irrepressible 
conflict  speech  by  some  months.  The  example  of  Indiana 
bore  immediate  fruit  in  other  quarters,  and  especially 
in  Pennsylvania.  Curtin,  the  nominee  for  governor,  was 
early  convinced  that  Seward  could  not  carry  that  state, 
but  that  Lincoln  could.  Curtin  and  Henry  S.  Lane,  the 
nominee  for  governor  of  Indiana,  became  active  torch- 
bearers  for  Lincoln. 

When  those  states  pronounced  for  Lincoln,  the  men  of 
Vermont  (the  most  radical  of  the  New  England  States), 
who  had  been  waiting  and  watching  in  the  Babel  of  dis 
cord  for  some  solid  and  assured  fact,  voting  meantime 
for  Collamer,  turned  to  Lincoln  and  gave  him  their  entire 
vote.  Vermont's  example  was  more  important  than  her 
numerical  strength,  for  it  disclosed  the  inmost  thoughts 
of  a  group  of  intelligent,  high-principled  men,  who  were 
moved  by  an  unselfish  purpose  and  a  solemn  responsi 
bility.  Lincoln  had  now  become  the  cynosure  of  the  con 
servatives  with  a  first-class  radical  endorsement  to  boot, 
and  he  deserved  both  distinctions.  His  nomination  fol 
lowed  on  the  third  ballot. 

Dr.  William  Jayne,  Springfield,  May  20,  wrote  to 
Trumbull: 

The  National  Convention  is  over  and  Lincoln  is  our  standard- 
bearer,  much  (I  doubt  not)  to  his  own  surprise;  I  know  to  the 
surprise  of  his  friends.  They  went  to  Chicago  fearful  that  Seward 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    107 

would  be  nominated,  and  ready  to  unite  on  any  other  man,  but 
anxious  and  zealous  for  Lincoln.  Pennsylvania  could  agree 
on  no  man  of  her  own  heartily.  Ohio  was  for  Chase  and  Wade. 
Indiana  was  united  on  Lincoln.  That  fact  made  an  impression 
on  the  New  England  States.  Seward's  friends  were  quite  con 
fident  after  the  balloting  commenced.  Now,  if  Douglas  is  not 
nominated,  we  will  carry  the  state  by  thousands.  If  D.  is  nomi 
nated,  we  will  carry  the  state,  but  we  will  have  a  hard  fight  to 
doit. 

Out  of  a  large  mass  of  letters  in  the  Trumbull  corres 
pondence  touching  the  nomination  of  Lincoln,  a  half- 
dozen  are  selected  as  examples. 

Richard  Yates,  Jacksonville,  May  24,  1860,  says  the  Chicago 
nominations  were  received  with  delight,  and  there  is  every  in 
dication  of  success  in  Illinois. 

John  Tillson,  Quincy,  May  28,  writes  that  the  nominations 
are  highly  acceptable  here  to  every  one  except  the  Douglas 
men,  who  have  just  found  out  that  Mr.  Seward  is  the  purest, 
ablest,  and  most  consistent  statesman  of  the  age. 

J.  A.  Mills,  Atlanta,  Logan  County,  June  4:  "I  have  never 
seen  such  enthusiasm,  at  least  since  1840,  as  is  now  manifested 
for  Lincoln.  Scores  of  Democrats  are  coming  over  to  us." 

B.  Lewis,  Jacksonville,  June  6:  "The  Charleston  Convention 
has  struck  the  Democratic  party  with  paralysis  wherever 
Douglas  was  popular  as  their  leader  (and  that  was  pretty  much 
all  over  the  free  states),  and  we  have  now  such  an  opportunity 
to  make  an  impression  as  I  never  saw  before.  .  .  .  We  are  ac 
tually  making  conversions  here  every  day.  The  fact  tells  the 
whole  story.  In  1858  I  anxiously  desired  to  hear  of  one  occa 
sionally,  at  least  as  a  sign,  but  I  could  never  hear  of  a  single  one. 
Now  it  is  all  gloriously  changed." 

W.  H.  Herndon,  Springfield,  June  14:  "Lincoln  is  well  and 
doing  well.  Has  hundreds  of  letters  daily.  Many  visitors  every 
hour  from  all  sections.  He  is  bored,  bored  badly.  Good  gra 
cious  !  I  would  not  have  his  place  and  be  bored  as  he  is.  I  could 
not  endure  it." 

H.  G.  McPike,  Alton,  June  29:  "We  have  distributed  a  large 
number  of  speeches  as  you  are  aware,  the  most  effective,  I  think, 
under  all  the  circumstances,  is  that  of  Carl  Schurz." 


108  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

In  reply  to  letters  of  Trumbull,  of  which  no  copies  were 
kept  by  him,  Lincoln  wrote  the  following: 

SPRINGFIELD,  May  26,  1860. 
HON.  L.  TRUMBULL, 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  I  have  received  your  letter  since  the  nomi 
nation,  for  which  I  sincerely  thank  you.  As  you  say,  if  we  can 
not  get  our  state  up  now,  I  do  not  see  when  we  can.  The 
nominations  start  well  here,  and  everywhere  else  as  far  as  I 
have  heard.  We  may  have  a  back-set  yet.  Give  my  respects 
to  the  Republican  Senators,  and  especially  to  Mr.  Hamlin,  Mr. 
Seward,  Gen.  Cameron,  and  Mr.  Wade.  Also  to  your  good  wife. 
Write  again,  and  do  not  write  so  short  letters  as  I  do. 
Your  friend  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  June  5,  1860. 
HON.  L.  TRUMBULL, 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Yours  of  May  31,  inclosing  Judge  R.'s  1 
letter  is  received.  I  see  by  the  papers  this  morning,  that  Mr. 
Fillmore  refused  to  go  with  us.  What  do  the  New  Yorkers 
at  Washington  think  of  this?  Governor  Reeder  was  here  last 
evening,  direct  from  Pennsylvania.  He  is  entirely  confident  of 
that  state  and  of  the  general  result.  I  do  not  remember  to  have 
heard  Gen.  Cameron's  opinion  of  Penn.  Weed  was  here  and 
saw  us,  but  he  showed  no  signs  whatever  of  the  intriguer.  He 
asked  for  nothing  and  said  N.  Y.  is  safe  without  conditions. 

Remembering  that  Peter  denied  his  Lord  with  an  oath,  after 
most  solemnly  protesting  that  he  never  would,  I  will  not  swear 
I  will  make  no  committals,  but  I  do  not  think  I  will. 

Write  me  often.  I  look  with  great  interest  for  your  letters 
now. 

Yours  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

Notwithstanding  the  brilliant  opening  of  the  campaign, 
the  contest  in  Illinois  was  a  very  stiff  one.  Dr.  Jayne's 
forecast  was  confirmed  by  the  result.  Lincoln's  plurality 
over  Douglas  in  the  state  was  11,946,  and  his  majority 

1  Presumably  Judge  Read,  of  Pennsylvania. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    109 

over  all  was  4629.  Dr.  Jayne  was  himself  elected  State 
Senator  in  the  district  composed  of  Sangamon  and  Mor 
gan  counties.  The  Republican  State  Committee  made 
extraordinary  efforts  to  carry  this  district,  as  they  be 
lieved  that  the  reelection  of  Senator  Trumbull  would  de 
pend  upon  it.  They  obtained  five  thousand  dollars  as  a 
special  fund  from  New  York  for  this  purpose.  Jayne  was 
elected  by  a  majority  of  seven  votes,  but  Douglas  received 
a  plurality  of  one  hundred  and  three  over  Lincoln  in  the 
same  district.  By  the  election  of  Jayne,  the  Republicans 
secured  a  majority  of  one  in  the  State  Senate.  This  in 
sured  the  holding  of  a  joint  convention  of  tl\e  legislature, 
at  which  Trumbull  was  reflected  Senator. 

At  Springfield,  Illinois,  November  20,  1860,  there  was 
a  grand  celebration  of  the  election  of  Lincoln  and  Hamlin, 
at  which  speeches  were  made  by  Trumbull,  Palmer,  and 
Yates.  Lincoln  had  been  urged  to  say  something  at  this 
meeting  that  would  tend  to  quiet  the  rising  surges  of  dis 
union  at  the  South,  but  he  thought  that  the  time  for  him 
to  speak  had  not  yet  come.  He  wished  to  let  his  record 
speak  for  him,  and  to  see  whether  the  commotion  in  the 
slaveholding  states  would  increase  or  subside.  Meanwhile 
he  desired  that  the  influence  of  this  public  meeting  at  his 
home  should  be  peaceful  and  not  irritating.  To  this  end 
he  wrote  the  following  words,  handed  them  to  Trumbull 
and  asked  him  to  make  them  a  part  of  his  speech : 

I  have  labored  in  and  for  the  Republican  organization  with 
entire  confidence  that,  whenever  it  shall  be  in  power,  each  and 
all  of  the  states  will  be  left  in  as  complete  control  of  their  own 
affairs  respectively,  and  at  as  perfect  liberty  to  choose  and 
employ  their  own  means  of  protecting  property  and  preserving 
peace  and  order  within  their  respective  limits,  as  they  have  ever 
been  under  any  administration.  Those  who  have  voted  for  Mr. 
Lincoln  have  expected  and  still  expect  this;  and  they  would 
not  have  voted  for  him  had  they  expected  otherwise. 


110  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

I  regard  it  as  extremely  fortunate  for  the  peace  of  the  whole 
country  that  this  point,  upon  which  the  Republicans  have  been 
so  long  and  so  persistently  misrepresented,  is  now  brought  to 
a  practical  test  and  placed  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt. 
Disunionists  per  se  are  now  in  hot  haste  to  get  out  of  the  Union, 
because  they  perceive  they  cannot  much  longer  maintain  an 
apprehension  among  the  Southern  people  that  their  homes 
and  firesides  and  their  lives  are  to  be  endangered  by  the  action 
of  the  Federal  Government.  With  such  "Now  or  never"  is  the 
maxim.  I  am  rather  glad  of  the  military  preparations  in  the 
South.  It  will  enable  the  people  the  more  easily  to  suppress 
any  uprisings  there,  which  those  misrepresentations  of  purpose 
may  have  encouraged. 

These  words  were  incorporated  in  Mr.  TrumbulPs 
speech  and  were  printed  in  the  newspapers,  and  the  manu 
script  in  Lincoln's  handwriting  is  still  preserved.1 

But  Mr.  Lincoln's  record  neither  hastened  nor  retarded 
the  secession  of  the  Southern  States.  The  words  he  had 
previously  spoken  or  written  were  as  completely  disre 
garded  by  the  promoters  of  disunion  as  were  those  uttered 
now  by  Trumbull. 

Jefferson  Davis  was  not  one  of  the  hot-heads  of  seces 
sion.  His  speech  in  the  Senate  on  January  10,  1861,  reads 
like  that  of  a  man  who  sincerely  regretted  the  step  that 
South  Carolina  had  taken,  and  deprecated  that  which 
Mississippi  was  about  to  take,  although  he  justified  it 
afterward,  but  he  believed  that  the  coercion  of  South 
Carolina  would  be  the  death-knell  of  the  Union.  His 
remedy  for  the  existing  menace  was  not  to  reinforce  the 
garrison  at  Fort  Sumter,  but  to  withdraw  it  altogether,  as 
a  preliminary  step  to  negotiations  with  the  seceding  state. 
Yet  he  did  not  say  what  terms  South  Carolina  would  agree 
to,  or  that  she  would  agree  to  any.  That  Lincoln  was  in 
no  mood  to  offer  terms  to  South  Carolina  or  to  any  se- 

\  MS.  in  the  collection  of  the  late  Major  W.  H.  Lambert,  Philadelphia. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    111 

ceding  states  which  did  not  say  what  would  satisfy  them, 
was  made  emphatic  in  a  letter  from  Dr.  William  Jayne 
to  Trumbull,  dated  Springfield,  January  28,  saying  that 
Governor  Yates  had  received  telegraph  dispatches  from 
the  governors  of  Ohio  and  Indiana,  asking  whether  Illi 
nois  would  appoint  peace  commissioners  in  response  to  a 
call  sent  out  by  the  governor  of  Virginia  to  meet  at  Wash 
ington  on  the  4th  of  February.  "Lincoln,"  he  continued, 
"advised  Yates  not  to  take  any  action  at  present.  He 
said  he  would  rather  be  hanged  by  the  neck  till  he  was 
dead  on  the  steps  of  the  Capitol  than  buy  or  beg  a  peace 
ful  inauguration." 

The  following  letters  from  Lincoln  throw  light  on  his 
attitude  toward  a  compromise  at  a  somewhat  earlier 
stage : 

Private  and  Confidential 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  December  10,  1860. 
HON.  L.  TRUMBULL, 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Let  there  be  no  compromise  on  the  question 
of  extending  slavery.  If  there  be,  all  our  labor  is  lost,  and  ere 
long  must  be  done  over  again.  The  dangerous  ground  —  that 
into  which  some  of  our  friends  have  a  hankering  to  run  —  is 
Pop.  Sov.  Have  none  of  it.  Stand  firm.  The  tug  has  to  come; 
and  better  now  than  any  time  hereafter. 

Yours  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

Confidential 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  December  17,  1860. 
HON.  L.  TRUMBULL, 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Yours  enclosing  Mr.  Wade's  letter,  which  I 
herewith  return,  is  received.  If  any  of  our  friends  do  prove  false 
and  fix  up  a  compromise  on  the  territorial  question,  I  am  for 
fighting  again  —  that  is  all.  It  is  but  a  repetition  for  me  to  say 
I  am  for  an  honest  enforcement  of  the  Constitution  —  the  fugi 
tive  slave  clause  included. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  N.  C.  wrote  me,  and  I  answered  confidentially, 


LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

enclosing  my  letter  to  Gov.  Corwin  to  be  delivered  or  not  as  he 
might  deem  prudent.   I  now  enclose  you  a  copy  of  it. 
Yours  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

Confidential 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  December  21,  1860. 
HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL, 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Thurlow  Weed  was  with  me  nearly  all  day 
yesterday,  and  left  last  night  with  three  short  resolutions 
which  I  drew  up,  and  which,  or  the  substance  of  which,  I  think, 
would  do  much  good  if  introduced  and  unanimously  supported 
by  our  friends.  They  do  not  touch  the  territorial  question.  Mr. 
Weed  goes  to  Washington  with  them;  and  says  that  he  will  first 
of  all  confer  with  you  and  Mr.  Hamlin.  I  think  it  would  be  best 
for  Mr.  Seward  to  introduce  them,  and  Mr.  Weed  will  let  him 
know  that  I  think  so.  Show  this  to  Mr.  Hamlin,  but  beyond 
him  do  not  let  my  name  be  known  in  the  matter. 
Yours  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

The  first  of  the  three  resolutions  named  was  to  amend 
the  Constitution  by  providing  that  no  future  amend 
ment  should  be  made  giving  Congress  the  power  to  inter 
fere  with  slavery  in  the  states  where  it  existed  by  law. 
The  second  was  for  a  law  of  Congress  providing  that 
fugitive  slaves  captured  should  have  a  jury  trial.  The 
third  recommended  that  the  Northern  States  should 
"review"  their  personal  liberty  laws. 


SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  December  24,  1860. 
HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL, 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  I  expect  to  be  able  to  offer  Mr.  Blair  a  place 
in  the  Cabinet,  but  I  cannot  as  yet  be  committed  on  the  matter 
to  any  extent  whatever. 

Dispatches  have  come  here  two  days  in  succession  that  the 
forts  in  South  Carolina  will  be  surrendered  by  order,  or  consent, 
at  least,  of  the  President.  I  can  scarcely  believe  this,  but  if  it 
prove  true,  I  will,  if  our  friends  in  Washington  concur,  announce 
publicly  at  once  that  they  are  to  be  retaken  after  the  inaugura- 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    113 

tion.  This  will  give  the  Union  men  a  rallying  cry,  and  prepara 
tions  will  proceed  somewhat  on  this  side  as  well  as  on  the  other. 
Yours  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

TrumbulPs  own  opinions  about  compromise  were  set 
forth  in  a  correspondence  with  E.  C.  Larned,  an  eminent 
lawyer  of  Chicago.  Under  date  January  7,  Larned  sent 
him  a  series  of  resolutions  written  by  himself  which  were 
passed  at  a  great  Union  meeting  composed  of  Republicans 
and  Democrats  in  Metropolitan  Hall.  One  of  these  reso 
lutions  suggested  "great  concessions"  to  the  South  with 
out  specifying  what  they  should  be.  Larned  asked  Trum- 
bull  to  read  them  and  advise  him  whether  they  met  his 
approval.  Trumbull  replied  under  date  January  16,  at 
considerable  length,  saying: 

In  the  present  condition  of  things  it  is  not  advisable,  in  my 
opinion,  for  Republicans  to  concede  or  talk  of  conceding  any 
thing.  The  people  of  most  of  the  Southern  States  are  mad  and 
in  no  condition  to  listen  to  reasonable  propositions.  They  per 
sist  in  misrepresenting  the  Republicans  and  many  of  them  are 
resolved  on  breaking  up  the  Government  before  they  will  con 
sider  what  guarantees  they  want.  To  make  or  propose  conces 
sions  to  such  a  people,  only  displays  the  weakness  of  the  Govern 
ment.  A  Union  which  can  be  destroyed  at  the  will  of  any  one 
state  is  hardly  worth  preserving.  The  first  question  to  be  de 
termined  is  whether  we  have  a  Government  capable  of  maintain 
ing  itself  against  a  state  rebellion.  When  that  question  is  effec 
tually  settled  and  the  Republicans  are  installed  in  power,  I 
would  willingly  concede  almost  anything,  not  involving  prin 
ciple,  for  the  purpose  of  overcoming  what  I  regard  the  misappre 
hension  and  prejudice  of  the  South,  but  to  propose  concessions 
in  advance  of  obtaining  power  looks  to  me  very  much  like  a  con 
fession  in  advance  that  the  principles  on  which  we  carried  the 
election  are  impracticable  and  wrong.  Had  the  Republican 
party  from  the  start  as  one  man  refused  to  entertain  or  talk 
compromises  and  concessions,  and  given  it  to  be  understood 
that  the  Union  was  to  be  maintained  and  the  laws  enforced  at 


114  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

all  hazards,  I  do  not  believe  secession  would  ever  have  obtained 
the  strength  it  now  has. 

The  pages  of  the  Congressional  Globe  of  1860-61 
make  the  two  most  intensely  interesting  volumes  in  our 
country's  history.  They  embrace  the  last  words  that  the 
North  and  South  had  to  say  to  each  other  before  the  doors 
of  the  temple  of  Janus  were  thrown  open  to  the  Civil  War. 
As  the  moment  of  parting  approached,  the  language  be 
came  plainer,  and  its  most  marked  characteristic  was  not 
anger,  not  hatred  between  disputants,  but  failure  to  un 
derstand  each  other.  It  was  as  though  the  men  on  either 
side  were  looking  at  an  object  through  glasses  of  differ 
ent  color,  or  arguing  in  different  languages,  or  worshiping 
different  gods.  Typical  of  the  disputants  were  Davis  and 
Trumbull,  men  of  equally  strong  convictions  and  high 
breeding,  and  moved  equally  by  love  of  country  as  they 
understood  that  term.  Davis  made  three  speeches,  two 
of  which  were  on  the  general  subject  of  debate,  and  one 
his  farewell  to  the  Senate.  The  first,  singularly  enough, 
was  called  out  by  a  resolution  offered  by  a  fellow  South 
erner  and  Democrat,  Green,  of  Missouri  (December  10, 
1860),  who  proposed  that  there  should  be  an  armed  po 
lice  force  provided  by  Federal  authority  to  guard,  where 
necessary,  the  boundary  line  between  the  slaveholding 
and  the  nonslaveholding  states,  to  preserve  the  peace, 
prevent  invasions,  and  execute  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law. 
This  scheme  Davis  considered  a  quack  remedy,  and  he 
declared  that  he  could  not  give  it  his  support  because  it 
looked  to  the  employment  of  force  to  bring  about  a  con 
dition  of  security  which  ought  to  exist  without  force. 
The  present  want  of  security,  he  contended,  could  not  be 
cured  by  an  armed  patrol,  but  only  by  a  change  of  senti 
ment  in  the  majority  section  of  the  Union  toward  the 
minority  section.  Upon  this  test  he  argued  in  a  dispas- 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    115 

sionate  way  for  a  considerable  space,  ending  in  these 
words : 

This  Union  is  dear  to  me  as  a  Union  of  fraternal  states.  It 
would  lose  its  value  to  me  if  I  had  to  regard  it  as  a  Union  held 
together  by  physical  force.  I  would  be  happy  to  know  that  every 
state  now  felt  that  fraternity  which  made  this  Union  possible; 
and  if  that  evidence  could  go  out,  if  evidence  satisfactory  to 
the  people  of  the  South  could  be  given,  that  that  feeling  existed 
in  the  hearts  of  the  Northern  people,  you  might  burn  your 
statute  books  and  we  would  cling  to  the  Union  still.  But  it  is 
because  of  their  conviction  that  hostility  and  not  fraternity 
now  exists  in  the  hearts  of  the  Northern  people,  that  they  are 
looking  to  their  reserved  rights  and  to  their  independent  powers 
for  their  own  protection.  If  there  be  any  good,  then,  which  we 
can  do,  it  is  by  sending  evidence  to  them  of  that  which  I  fear 
does  not  exist  —  the  purpose  in  your  constituents  to  fulfill  in 
the  spirit  of  justice  and  fraternity  all  their  constitutional  ob 
ligations.  If  you  can  submit  to  them  that  evidence,  I  feel  con 
fidence  that  with  the  evidence  that  aggression  is  henceforth  to 
cease,  will  terminate  all  the  measures  for  defense.  Upon  you 
of  the  majority  section  it  depends  to  restore  peace  and  perpetu 
ate  the  Union  of  equal  states;  upon  us  of  the  minority  section 
rests  the  duty  to  maintain  our  equality  and  community  rights; 
and  the  means  in  one  case  or  the  other  must  be  such  as  each  can 
control.1 

This  was  the  explicit  confirmation  of  what  Lincoln  had 
said,  in  his  Cooper  Institute  speech  a  year  earlier,  was  the 
chief  difficulty  of  the  North:  "We  must  not  only  let  them 
(the  South)  alone,  but  we  must  somehow  convince  them 
that  we  do  let  them  alone." 

The  best  speech  made  on  the  Republican  side  of  the 
chamber  during  this  momentous  session  of  Congress  was 
made  by  Trumbull  on  the  night  of  March  2.  It  was  a 
speech  adverse  to  the  Crittenden  Compromise,  and  was 
a  reply  to  Crittenden's  final  speech  in  support  of  it.  This 
measure  was  a  joint  resolution  proposing  certain  amend- 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1860-61,  p.  30. 


116  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

ments  to  the  Constitution,  the  first  of  which  proposed  to 
apply  the  old  Missouri  Compromise  line,  of  36°  30'  north 
latitude,  to  all  the  remaining  territory  of  the  United 
States,  so  that  in  all  territory  north  of  it,  then  owned  or 
thereafter  acquired,  slavery  should  be  prohibited,  and 
that  in  all  south  of  it,  then  owned  or  thereafter  acquired, 
slavery  should  be  recognized  as  existing,  and  that  the 
right  of  property  in  slaves  there  should  be  protected  by 
Federal  law.  It  was  offered  on  the  18th  of  December, 
1860,  and  debated  till  the  2d  of  March  following,  when  it 
was  defeated  by  yeas  19,  nays  20,  all  the  Republicans 
voting  against  it  except  Seward,  who  did  not  vote  and  was 
not  paired.1 

Just  before  the  vote  was  taken,  Crittenden  tried  to 
amend  his  measure  by  striking  out  the  words  "hereafter 
acquired"  as  to  the  territory  south  of  36°  30',  which  he 
said  was  giving  great  offense  in  some  parts  of  the  North. 
This  was  not  in  the  measure  as  originally  proposed  by 
him,  but  he  had  accepted  it  as  an  amendment  offered  by 
his  colleague,  Senator  Powell.  It  was  then  too  late  to 
amend  except  by  unanimous  consent,  and  Hunter,  of 
Virginia,  objected.  In  this  last  debate,  Mason  drew  at 
tention  to  the  minimum  demands  of  Virginia  as  expressed 
by  her  legislature.  These  were  the  Crittenden  Com 
promise,  including  territory  "hereafter  acquired,"  and 
the  right  of  slaveholders  to  pass  with  their  slaves  through 
the  free  states  with  protection  to  their  slave  property  in 
transit.  Mason  intimated  pretty  plainly  that  even  this 
would  not  satisfy  him,  for  which  he  received  some  casti- 
gation  at  the  hands  of  Douglas.  The  latter  was  a  steady 
supporter  of  the  Crittenden  Compromise,  but  he  main 
tained  throughout  the  debate  that  no  cause  for  disunion 

1  Trumbull's  speech  on  the  Crittenden  Compromise,  which  was  impromptu 
and  was  delivered  about  midnight,  is  printed  as  an  appendix  to  this  chapter. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    117 

would  exist,  even  if  the  measure  were  defeated,  and  that 
none  would  exist  if  the  Federal  Government  should  at 
tempt  to  compel  a  state  or  any  number  of  states  to  obey 
the  Federal  law. 

Simultaneously  with  the  rejection  of  the  Crittenden 
Compromise,  the  Senate,  by  a  two-thirds  majority,  passed 
a  joint  resolution  to  amend  the  Constitution  by  adding 
to  it  the  following  article: 

Article  XIII.  No  amendment  shall  be  made  to  the  Consti 
tution  which  will  authorize  or  give  to  Congress  the  power  to 
abolish  or  interfere,  within  any  state,  with  the  domestic  insti 
tutions  thereof,  including  that  of  persons  held  to  labor  or  serv 
ice  by  the  laws  of  said  state. 

This  was  a  resolution  introduced  by  Cor  win,  of  Ohio. 
It  had  already  passed  the  House  by  a  two-thirds  majority, 
but  it  fell  into  the  limbo  of  forgotten  things  before  sun 
rise  of  the  4th  of  March. 

During  this  crisis  Trumbull  was  receiving  hundreds  of 
letters  from  his  constituents,  nearly  all  exhorting  him  to 
stand  firm.  The  only  ones  counseling  compromise  were 
from  the  commercial  classes  in  Chicago,  and  of  these  there 
were  fewer  than  might  have  been  expected  in  view  of  the 
threatened  danger  to  trade  and  industry.  The  dwellers 
in  the  small  towns  and  on  the  farms  were  almost  unani 
mously  opposed  to  the  Crittenden  Compromise.  A  few 
letters  are  here  cited  from  representative  men  in  their  re 
spective  localities: 

A.  B.  Barrett  (Mount  Vernon,  January  5)  has  taken  pains 
to  gather  the  opinions  of  Republicans  in  his  neighborhood  in 
reference  to  the  secession  movement  and  finds  them,  without  a 
single  exception,  in  favor  of  enforcing  the  laws  and  opposed  to 
any  concession  on  the  part  of  Congress  which  would  recognize 
slavery  as  right  in  principle,  or  as  a  national  institution. 

J.  H.  Smith  (Bushnell,  January  7)  contends  that  the  Chi 
cago  platform  was  a  contract  between  the  Republican  voters 


118  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

and  the  men  elected  to  office  by  them,  and  the  voters  expect 
them  to  live  up  to  it,  to  the  very  letter.  "  If  the  South  wants  to 
fight  let  them  pitch  in  as  soon  as  they  please;  we  would  rather 
fight  than  allow  slavery  to  go  into  anymore  territory."  Encloses 
resolutions  to  this  purport  passed  by  a  public  meeting  of  citi 
zens  of  his  town. 

A.  C.  Harding  (Monmouth,  January  12)  is  pained  to  hear 
a  rumor  that  some  Republicans  in  Washington  are  considering 
a  bill  to  make  a  slave  state  south  of  36°  30',  thus  sanctioning  a 
slave  code  by  Congress.  Any  concessions  that  shall  violate  the 
pledges  of  the  Republican  party  will  instantly  turn  the  guns  of 
our  truest  friends  upon  those  who  thus  give  strength  to  the 
Southern  rebels.  Neither  Adams  nor  Seward  nor  Lincoln  can 
for  a  moment  escape  the  fatal  consequences  if  they  yield  their 
principles  at  the  threat  of  disunion. 

Wait  Talcott  (Rockford,  January  17)  has  just  finished  read 
ing  Seward's  speech.  It  leads  him  to  fear  that  yielding  to  the 
South,  and  calling  a  national  convention  under  their  threat, 
will  embolden  them,  whenever  the  result  of  an  election  does 
not  suit  them,  to  insist  that  the  victors  shall  take  the  place  of 
the  vanquished. 

G.  Koerner  (Belleville,  January  21) :  The  Democratic  Con 
vention  at  Springfield  has  done  some  mischief  by  inflaming 
the  lower  order  of  the  Democracy  and  confirming  them  in  their 
seditious  views.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  disgusted  the  better 
class  of  Democrats.  It  was  a  sort  of  indignation  meeting  of  all 
the  disappointed  candidates,  office-seekers,  and  losers  of  bets. 
A  few  Republicans  are  giving  way  under  the  pressure,  but  upon 
the  whole  the  party  stands  firm.  "Has  secession  culminated  or 
is  worse  to  come?  I  am  prepared  for  the  application  of  force. 
In  fact,  a  collision  is  inevitable.  Why  ought  not  we  to  test  our 
Government  instead  of  leaving  it  to  our  children?" 

H.  G.  McPike  (Alton,  January  24) :  "Our  people  believe  the 
Constitution  to  be  good  enough.  Let  it  alone.  A  compromise  of 
any  principle  dissolves  the  Republican  party,  takes  the  great 
moral  heart  out  of  it,  and  will  in  so  far  bring  ruin  on  the  Govern 
ment." 

J.  M.  Sturtevant,  president  of  Illinois  College  (Jacksonville, 
January  30),  protests  against  the  tone  of  Mr.  Seward's  speech. 
Says  that  the  solid  phalanx  of  thoughtful,  conscientious,  ear- 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    119 

nest,  religious  men  who  form  the  backbone  of  the  Republican 
party  will  never  follow  Mr.  Seward,  or  any  other  man,  in  the 
direction  in  which  he  seems  to  be  leading.  "We  want  the  Con 
stitution  as  it  is,  the  Union  as  the  Fathers  framed  it,  and  the 
Chicago  platform.  And  we  will  support  no  man  and  no  party 
that  surrenders  these  or  any  portion  of  them." 

Grant  Goodrich  (Chicago,  January  31)  is  convinced  by  his 
intercourse  with  the  mass  of  Republicans,  and  with  many 
Democrats,  that  any  concessions  by  which  additional  rights  are 
given  to  slavery  will  end  the  Republican  party.  There  will  be 
a  division  of  the  Republicans;  a  new  party  will  arise,  which  will 
include  the  entire  German  element  and  which  will  be  as  hos 
tile  to  the  "Union-saving"  Republicans  as  to  the  Democrats, 
and  much  more  intolerant  to  their  former  allies. 

E.  Peck  (Springfield,  February  1)  says  that  the  proposition 
to  send  commissioners  to  Washington  was  passed  by  the 
legislature  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  because,  if  the  Republicans 
had  not  taken  the  lead,  the  Democrats  would  have  done  so, 
and  would  have  obtained  the  help  of  a  sufficient  number  of  weak- 
kneed  Republicans  to  make  a  majority.  Mr.  Lincoln  would  have 
preferred  that  commissioners  be  not  appointed. 

W.  H.  Herndon  (Springfield,  February  9):  "Are  our  Repub 
lican  friends  going  to  concede  away  dignity,  Constitution, 
Union,  laws,  and  justice?  If  they  do,  I  am  their  enemy  now  and 
forever.  I  may  not  have  much  influence,  but  I  will  help  tear 
down  the  Republican  party  and  erect  another  in  its  stead.  Be 
fore  I  would  buy  the  South,  by  compromises  and  concessions, 
to  get  what  is  the  people's  due,  I  would  die,  rot,  and  be  forgot 
ten,  willingly." 

Samuel  C.  Parks  (Lincoln,  Logan  County,  February  11)  is 
opposed  to  the  Crittenden  Compromise,  because  the  integrity 
of  the  Republican  party  and  the  salvation  of  the  country  re 
quire  that  this  grand  drama  of  secession,  disunion,  and  treason 
be  played  out  entirely.  Either  slavery  or  freedom  must  rule  this 
country,  or  there  must  be  a  final  separation  of  the  free  and  the 
slave  states.  No  compromise  will  do  any  permanent  good.  On 
the  contrary,  if  the  territorial  question  is  compromised  now,  it 
will  but  postpone,  aggravate,  and  prolong  the  contest.  Considers 
it  mean  and  cowardly  to  leave  to  our  children  a  great  national 
trouble  that  we  might  settle  ourselves. 


120  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

January  2, 1861,  Trumbull  wrote  to  Governor  Yates 
advising  that  some  steps  be  taken  in  the  way  of  military 
preparations,  saying: 

The  impression  is  very  general  here  that  Buchanan  has  waked 
up  at  last  to  the  sense  of  his  condition  and  will  make  an  effort 
to  enforce  the  laws  and  protect  the  public  property.  That  this 
was  his  determination  two  days  ago,  I  have  the  best  reasons  for 
knowing,  but  he  is  so  feeble,  vacillating,  and  irresolute,  that  I 
fear  he  will  not  act  efficiently;  and  some  even  say  that  he  has 
again  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  disunionists.  This  I  cannot 
believe.  If  he  does  his  duty  with  tolerable  efficiency,  even  at 
this  late  day,  there  will  be  no  serious  difficulty.  The  states 
which  resolved  themselves  out  of  the  Union  would  be  coming 
back  before  many  months.  But  if  he  continues  to  side  with  the 
disunionists,  we  cannot  avoid  serious  trouble,  for  in  that  event 
I  think  the  traitors  would  be  encouraged  to  attempt  to  take 
possession  here,  and  most  of  the  public  property  and  munitions 
of  war  would  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  disunionists  before 
the  4th  of  March.  In  view  of  the  present  condition  of  affairs 
and  the  uncertainty  as  to  the  future,  I  think  it  no  more  than 
prudent  that  our  state  should  be  making  some  preparations  to 
organize  its  military,  or  get  up  volunteer  companies,  so  as  to 
be  ready  to  come  to  the  support  of  the  Constitution  and  the 
laws  if  the  occasion  should  require.  I  think  that  there  will  be 
no  occasion  for  troops  here,  and  that  the  inauguration  will 
probably  take  place.  But  take  place  it  must,  and  at  Washing 
ton,  even  though  a  hundred  thousand  men  have  to  come  here 
to  effect  it.  The  Government  is  a  failure  unless  this  is  done. 

Governor  Yates's  reply,  if  any,  is  not  found  in  the 
Trumbull  papers,  but  a  letter  from  him  dated  Springfield, 
January  22,  says  that  Frank  P.  Blair,  Jr.,  had  just  ar 
rived  from  St.  Louis  with  information  that  the  secession 
ists  in  Missouri  had  formed  a  plot  to  seize  the  United 
States  Arsenal  at  St.  Louis,  which  was  the  only  depot 
of  arms  west  of  Pittsburg.  If  this  should  be  attempted, 
Yates  said  it  would  lead  to  serious  complications  and 
perhaps  a  collision  between  Illinois  and  Missouri,  since 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    121 

it  could  not  be  permitted  that  this  great  arsenal,  intended 
for  the  use  of  the  entire  West,  should  fall  into  the  hands 
of  enemies  of  the  Union.  He  asked  Trumbull  to  see 
General  Scott  at  once  and  insist  that  something  be  done 
which  would  obviate  the  necessity  of  action  on  the  part 
of  the  state  of  Illinois. 

Some  letters  from  Mrs.  Trumbull  to  her  son  Walter, 
who  was  on  a  warship  in  foreign  parts  during  the  month 
of  January,  1861,  supply  a  few  items  of  interest. 

January  21  she  says: 

The  Senators  of  Mississippi,  Alabama,  and  Florida  yester 
day  took  formal  leave  of  the  Senate.  The  speech  of  Clay,  of 
Alabama,  was  very  ugly,  but  that  of  Davis  was  pathetic,  and 
even  Republican  ladies  were  moved  to  tears.  Gov.  Pickens  of 
S.  C.  sent  for  $300  due  him  as  Minister  to  Russia,  and  the 
Treasurer  sent  him  a  draft  on  the  sub-treasury  at  Charleston 
which  the  Rebels  had  seized. 

January  24: 

Called  at  Dr.  SunderlandV  yesterday.  He  said  that  in  talk 
ing  with  a  disunionist  a  few  days  ago  he  asked  what  the  South 
demanded  and  what  would  satisfy  them.  He  replied  that  the 
North  must  be  uneducated,  or  educated  differently;  their  senti 
ments  must  be  changed,  and  it  can't  be  done  in  this  generation. 

Just  before  starting  home,  Toombs's  coachman,  strange  to 
say,  deserted  his  kind  master  for  a  trip  on  the  Underground 
Railroad,  greatly  to  the  disgust  of  Mrs.  Toombs.  She  was  met 
by  Mrs.  Judge  McLean,  who  said  to  her,  "Mrs.  Toombs,  are 
you  going  to  leave  us?"  "Yes," she  replied,  "I  am  glad  enough 
to  go;  here  I  am  riding  in  a  hack!"  It  was  very  hard,  very  dis 
gusting,  and  Mrs.  McLean,  instead  of  trying  to  hunt  up  her 
fugitive  for  her,  told  her  that  when  the  South  had  all  seceded, 
they  would  have  Canada  right  on  their  borders,  and  where 
one  now  escaped,  there  would  then  be  a  hundred. 

January  26: 

The  city  begins  to  present  a  warlike  appearance.  Two  com- 
1  Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church. 


LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

panics  are  stationed  quite  near  us  on  E  St.  and  others  are  placed 
in  Judiciary  Square  near  the  Capitol,  and  at  the  President's, 
about  700  in  all.  A  company  of  light  artillery  arrived  yesterday 
morning,  soon  after  which  cannonading  was  heard,  volley  after 
volley.  I  supposed  the  thunder  of  the  cannon  was  meant  to 
convey  wholesome  instruction  to  the  revolutionists,  but  I  learned 
this  evening  that  it  was  a  salute  for  Kansas,  which  is  now  a 
state.  Thirty-four  guns  were  fired.  I  understood  that  some  of 
the  ladies  at  the  National  Hotel  were  so  alarmed  that  they  be 
gan  to  pack  their  trunks  so  as  to  retreat  promptly  with  all  their 
luggage.  I  believe  that  Gen.  Scott  intends  to  have  more  troops 
here,  but  the  O.  P.  F.1  countermands  most  of  his  orders.  The 
Cabinet  find  him  very  troublesome  even  now;  he  still  listens  to 
Slidell  and  others. 

A  set  of  compromisers  came  here  a  few  days  since  from  New 
York  with  a  string  of  resolutions  and  explained  them  to  Senator 
King,  hoping  he  would  endorse  them.  Mr.  King  read  them  and 
handed  them  back  silently.  Said  the  spokesman:  "I  trust  they 
meet  your  approval,  they  are  good  resolutions;  you  approve 
them,  do  you  not,  Mr.  King?  "  He  answered  in  his  good-humored, 
laughing  way,  but  withal  very  firmly:  "I  would  resign  my  seat 
first  and  I  think  I  would  rather  die."  The  same  men  went  to 
your  father  urging  him  to  support  them,  and  stated  that  New 
York  would  not  defend  the  public  property  within  her  limits 
unless  Congress  adopted  some  such  action.  Your  father  told 
them  that  if  that  was  to  be  the  course  of  New  York,  we  might 
as  well  know  it  now  as  ever,  and  refused  to  have  anything  to 
do  with  their  resolutions. 

In  the  same  letter  she  writes: 

Mrs.  McLean  called  yesterday.  She  said  they  dined  at  the 
White  House  once  while  the  President  was  making  up  his  mind 
whether  or  not  to  recall  Major  Anderson.  The  judge  took 
the  President  aside  to  make  some  inquiries  about  the  Major. 
Buchanan  replied  that  he  had  exceeded  his  instructions  and 
must  be  recalled.  The  Judge  raised  his  hand  with  vehemence, 
almost  in  the  President's  face,  and  asserted  with  emphasis: 
"You  dare  not  do  it,  sir,  you  dare  not  do  it."  And  he  did  not. 

1  "Old  Public  Functionary"  —  a  name  that  Buchanan  in  one  of  his  mes 
sages  had  given  to  himself. 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    123 

Probably  this  is  the  only  instance  on  record  where  a 
Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  shook  his  fist  in  the  face  of 
the  President  after  dining  with  him  at  the  White  House. 
It  is  not  improbable  that  the  vehemence  of  the  venerable 
Judge  was  one  of  the  potent  reasons  deterring  Buchanan 
from  ordering  Anderson  to  return  from  Fort  Sumter  to 
Fort  Moultrie.1 

TRUMBULL'S  SPEECH  AGAINST  THE  CRITTENDEN 
COMPROMISE 

[In  the  Senate,  March  2,  1861.] 

MR.  TRUMBULL.  Mr.  President,  the  long  public  service  of 
the  Senator  from  Kentucky,  his  acknowledged  patriotism  and 
devotion  to  the  Union,  give  great  importance  to  whatever  he 
says;  and  in  all  he  has  said  in  favor  of  the  Union  and  its  preser 
vation,  and  the  maintenance  of  the  Constitution,  I  most  heart 
ily  concur.  No  man  shall  exceed  me  in  devotion  to  the  Consti 
tution  and  the  Union.  But,  while  this  is  so,  what  the  Senator 
says  of  those  of  us  who  disagree  with  him  as  to  the  mode  of 
preserving  the  Union  and  maintaining  the  peace  of  the  country 
is  well  calculated,  in  consequence  of  the  position  he  occupies, 
to  mislead  and  prejudice  the  public  mind  as  to  our  true  posi 
tion.  Does  he  expect,  or  can  he  expect,  that  compromises  will 
be  made  and  concessions  yielded  when  he  talks  of  the  great 
party  of  this  country,  constituting  a  majority  of  its  people,  as 
being  wedded  to  a  dogma  set  up  above  the  Constitution ;  when 
he  talks  of  us  as  usurping  all  the  territories,  as  ostracizing  all 
the  people  of  the  South,  and  denying  them  their  rights?  Is  that 
the  way  to  obtain  compromises?  Instead  of  turning  his  denun 
ciation  upon  those  who  violate  the  Constitution  and  trample 
the  flag  of  the  country  in  the  dust,  he  turns  to  us  and  talks  to  us 
of  usurpations,  of  our  dogmas;  tells  us  that  for  a  straw  we  are 
willing  to  dissolve  the  Union  and  involve  the  country  in  blood. 
Why  are  not  these  appeals  made  and  these  rebukes  adminis- 

1  Jefferson  Davis  says,  in  his  Rise  and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  States,  that 
Buchanan  told  him  that "  he  thought  it  not  impossible  that  his  homeward  route 
would  be  lighted  by  burning  effigies  of  himself  and  that  on  reaching  his  home  he 
would  find  it  a  heap  of  ashes." 


124  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

tered  to  the  men  who  are  involving  the  country  in  blood?  If  it 
is  a  straw  for  us  to  yield,  is  it  anything  more  than  a  straw  for 
them  to  demand?  If  it  is  a  trifle  for  us  to  concede,  is  it  any  larger 
than  a  trifle  which  the  South  demands,  and  to  obtain  which  it 
is  willing  to  destroy  this  Union,  which  he  has  so  beautifully  and 
so  highly  eulogized? 

Sir,  I  have  heard  this  charge  against  the  people  of  the  North, 
of  a  desire  to  usurp  the  whole  of  the  common  territories,  till  I 
am  tired  of  the  accusation.  It  has  been  made  and  refuted  ten 
thousand  times.  Not  a  man  in  the  North  denies  to  every  citi 
zen  of  the  South  the  same  right  in  a  territory  that  he  claims  for 
himself.  And  who  are  the  people  of  the  South?  Slaveholders? 
Not  one  white  citizen  in  twenty  of  the  population  in  the  South 
owns  a  slave.  The  nineteen  twentieths  of  the  nonslaveholding 
population  of  the  South  are  forgotten,  while  the  one  twentieth 
is  spoken  of  as  "the  South."  The  man  who  owns  a  slave  in  the 
South  has  just  as  much  right  in  the  territory  as  a  man  in  the 
North  who  owns  no  slave.  If  the  Southerner  cannot  take  his 
negro  slave  to  the  territory,  neither  can  the  Northern  man. 

Again,  sir,  the  Senator  talks  of  the  rights  of  the  States  to  the 
common  territories.  The  territories  do  not  belong  to  the  States; 
they  are  the  property  of  the  General  Government;  and  the  state 
of  Kentucky  has  no  more  right  in  a  territory  than  has  the  city 
of  Washington,  or  any  county  in  the  state  of  Maryland.  As  a 
state,  Kentucky  has  no  right  in  a  territory,  nor  has  Illinois; 
but  the  territories  belong  to  the  Federal  government,  and  are 
disposed  of  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  without  regard 
to  locality. 

But,  sir,  I  propose  to  inquire  what  it  is  that  has  brought  the 
country  to  its  present  condition;  what  it  is  that  has  occasioned 
this  disruption,  this  revolution  in  a  portion  of  the  country. 
Many  years  ago  an  attempt  was  made  in  the  state  of  South 
Carolina  to  disrupt  this  Government,  at  that  time  on  account  of 
the  revenue  system.  It  failed.  The  disunionists  of  1832  were  put 
down  by  General  Jackson;  and  from  that  day  to  this  there  have 
been  secessionists  per  se,  men  who  have  been  struggling  con 
tinuously  and  persistently  to  propagate  their  doctrine  wherever 
they  could  find  followers;  and,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  they  seem  to 
have  impressed  the  public  mind  of  the  South,  to  a  great  extent, 
with  their  notions.  In  1850,  the  effort  to  break  up  the  Govern- 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    125 

ment  was  renewed.  It  was  then  settled  by  what  were  known 
as  the  compromise  measures  of  that  year.  The  great  men  of 
that  day  —  Clay,  Webster,  Cass,  and  others  —  took  part  in 
that  settlement,  and  it  was  then  supposed  that  the  settlement 
would  be  permanent.  The  controversy  of  1850  was  not  in 
regard  to  a  tariff,  but  in  regard  to  the  negro  question;  the  very 
question  which  General  Jackson  had  prophesied,  in  the  nullifi 
cation  times,  would  be  the  one  upon  which  the  next  attempt 
would  be  made  to  destroy  the  Government.  After  a  long  struggle, 
the  compromise  measures  of  1850  were  passed.  Quiet  was  given 
to  the  country;  all  parties  in  all  sections  of  the  country  acqui 
esced  in  the  settlement  then  made.  Resolutions  were  offered 
in  this  body  denouncing  any  person  who  should  attempt  again 
to  introduce  the  question  of  slavery  into  Congress.  Speeches 
were  made,  in  which  Senators  declared  that  they  would  never 
again  speak  upon  the  subject  in  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  It  was  said  that  the  slavery  question  was  forever  re 
moved  from  the  halls  of  Congress,  and  we  then  supposed  that 
the  country  would  continue  quiet  on  this  exciting  subject.  But, 
sir,  in  1854,  notwithstanding  the  pledges  which  had  been  given 
in  1850,  notwithstanding  the  quiet  of  the  country,  when  no 
man  was  agitating  the  slavery  question;  when  no  petitions  came 
from  the  states,  counties,  cities,  or  towns,  from  villages  or  indi 
viduals,  asking  a  disturbance  of  former  compromises;  when  all 
was  quiet,  of  a  sudden  a  proposition  was  sprung  in  this  chamber 
to  unsettle  the  very  questions  which  had  been  put  to  rest  by 
the  compromises  of  1850.  A  proposition  was  then  introduced 
to  repeal  one  of  the  compromises  which  had  been  recognized 
by  the  acts  of  1850;  for  the  Missouri  Compromise,  which  ex 
cluded  slavery  from  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  was,  by  reference, 
directly  and  in  express  terms,  reaffirmed  by  the  compromises 
of  1850.  But,  sir,  in  the  beginning  of  1854,  that  fatal  propo 
sition  was  introduced  and  embodied  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
Act,  which  declared  that  the  eighth  section  of  the  act  for  the 
admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  which  had  passed  in 
1820,  and  which  excluded  slavery  from  Kansas  and  Nebraska, 
should  be  repealed,  it  being  declared  to  be  "the  true  intent  and 
meaning  of  the  act  not  to  introduce  slavery  into  any  state  or 
territory,  nor  to  exclude  it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people 
thereof  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic  insti- 


126  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

tutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States"  —  a  little  stump  speech,  as  Colonel  Ben- 
ton  denominated  it,  introduced  into  the  body  of  the  bill,  which 
has  since  become  as  familiar  to  all  the  children  of  the  land, 
from  its  frequent  repetition,  as  Mother  Goose's  stories.  That 
was  the  fatal  act  which  brought  about  the  agitation  of  the  slav 
ery  question;  and  on  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise 
followed  the  disturbances  in  the  settlement  of  Kansas.  That  act 
led  to  civil  war  in  Kansas,  to  the  burning  of  towns,  to  the  in 
vasion  from  Missouri,  to  all  the  horrors  and  anarchy  which 
reigned  in  that  ill-fated  territory  for  several  years,  all  of  which  is 
too  fresh  in  the  recollection  of  the  American  people  to  require 
repetition.  And,  sir,  from  that  day  to  this,  the  doctrine  which 
it  is  pretended  was  enunciated  in  1854  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
Act,  of  non-intervention,  of  popular  sovereignty,  for  it  is  known 
under  various  names,  has  been  preached  all  over  the  country, 
until  in  the  election  of  1860,  it  was  repudiated  and  scouted, 
North  and  South,  by  a  majority  of  the  people  in  every  state 
in  the  Union;  and  even  at  this  session,  it  has  been  thrust  in 
here  upon  almost  every  occasion,  as  the  grand  panacea  that 
was  to  give  peace  to  the  country;  whereas  it  was  the  very  thing 
which  gave  rise  to  all  the  difficulties.  The  disunionists  per  se 
have  seized  hold  of  the  disturbances  growing  out  of  the  slavery 
question,  all  occasioned  by  this  fatal  step  in  1854,  to  inflame 
the  public  mind  of  the  South,  and  bring  about  the  state  of  things 
which  now  exists. 

But,  sir,  the  Union  survived  the  disunion  movement  of  1832; 
it  survived  the  excitement  upon  the  slavery  question  in  1850; 
it  survived  the  disturbances  in  Kansas  in  1855  and  1856,  con 
sequent  upon  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  It  sur 
vived  them  all  without  an  actual  attempt  at  disruption,  until 
we  came  down  to  1860,  and  Abraham  Lincoln  was  elected  Presi 
dent;  and  even  now,  notwithstanding  the  dissatisfaction  at  his 
election  in  some  portions  of  the  country,  and  all  the  previous 
troubles,  the  laws  to-day  would  have  had  force  in  every  part  of 
the  Union,  and  secession  would  have  been  checked  in  its  very 
origin,  had  the  Government  done  its  duty  and  not  acted  in 
complicity  with  the  men  who  had  resolved  to  destroy  it. 

The  secession  movement,  then,  dates  back  several  years.  It 
received  an  impetus  in  1850;  another  in  1854;  and  in  1860,  by 


THE  ELECTION   OF   LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    127 

the  connivance  and  the  assistance  of  the  Government  itself, 
it  acquired  the  strength  which  it  now  has.  What  has  been  the 
policy  of  the  expiring  administration?  Its  Cabinet  officers 
boasting  of  their  complicity  with  the  men  who  were  plotting 
the  destruction  of  the  Government;  openly  proclaiming  in  the 
face  of  the  world  that  they  had  used  their  official  power,  while 
members  of  the  Cabinet,  and  sworn  to  protect  and  preserve 
the  Government,  to  furnish  the  means  for  its  destruction; 
openly  acknowledging  before  the  world  that  they  had  used  the 
power  which  their  positions  gave  them  to  discredit  the  Govern 
ment,  and  also  to  furnish  arms  and  munitions  of  war  to  the  men 
who  were  conspiring  together  to  assault  its  fortifications,  and 
seize  its  property;  openly  boasting  that  they  had  taken  care, 
during  their  public  service,  to  see  that  the  arms  of  the  Federal 
Government  were  placed  in  convenient  positions  for  the  use  of 
those  who  designed  to  employ  them  for  its  destruction.  More 
than  this,  members,  while  serving  in  the  other  branch  of  Con 
gress,  go  to  the  Executive  of  the  United  States,  and  tell  him, 
"Sir,  we  are  taking  steps  in  South  Carolina  to  break  up  this 
Government;  you  have  forts  and  fortifications  there;  they  are 
but  poorly  manned;  now  if  you  will  leave  them  in  the  condi 
tion  they  are  until  the  state  of  South  Carolina  gets  ready  to 
take  possession,  we  will  wait  until  that  time  before  we  seize 
them";  and  the  Executive  of  the  nation  asks  that  the  treason 
able  proposition  be  put  in  writing,  and  files  it  away.  Why,  sir, 
is  there  another  capital  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  to  which  men 
could  come  from  state  or  province,  and  inform  the  executive 
head  that  they  were  about  to  take  steps  to  seize  the  public 
property  belonging  to  the  Government,  and  warn  the  Execu 
tive  to  leave  it  in  its  insecure  and  undefended  state  until  they 
should  be  prepared  to  take  possession,  and  they  be  permitted 
to  depart?  Is  there  another  capital  on  the  face  of  the  globe 
where  commissioners  coming  to  the  Executive  under  these  cir 
cumstances  would  not  have  been  arrested  on  the  spot  for 
treason?  But  your  Government,  if  it  did  not  directly  promise 
not  to  arm  its  forts,  certainly  took  no  steps  to  protect  its  public 
property;  and  this  went  on,  until  a  gallant  officer  who  was  in 
command  of  less  than  a  hundred  men  in  the  harbor  of  Charles^ 
ton,  acting  upon  his  own  responsibility,  thought  proper  to  throO 
his  little  force  into  a  fort  where  he  could  protect  himself;  and 


128  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

then  it  was  that  these  insurgents,  rebelling  against  the  Govern 
ment,  demanded  that  he  should  be  withdrawn,  and  the  Execu 
tive  then  was  forced  to  take  position.  Then  his  Cabinet  officers 
who  had  been  in  conspiracy  with  the  plotters  of  treason,  then 
the  Chief  Magistrate  himself  was  forced  to  take  position.  He 
must  openly  withdraw  his  forces,  and  surrender  the  public 
property  he  was  sworn  to  protect,  openly  violate  the  oath  he 
had  taken  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  execute  the  laws,  and  take  side  with  traitors;  or  else  he 
must  leave  Major  Anderson  where  he  was.  Exposed  to  public 
view,  brought  to  this  dilemma,  I  am  glad  to  say  that  even  then, 
at  that  late  day,  the  President  of  the  United  States  concluded 
to  take  sides  for  the  Union;  that  even  he  came  out,  though 
feebly  it  was,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  his  Secre 
tary  of  War  retired  from  his  Cabinet,  not  in  disgrace,  so  far  as 
its  executive  head  was  concerned,  for  he  parted  pleasantly  with 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  but  he  retired  because  the 
President  would  not  carry  out  the  policy  which  he  understood 
to  have  been  agreed  upon,  which  was  to  leave  the  fortifications 
in  a  position  that  Carolina  might  take  them  whenever  she 
thought  proper. 

But,  sir,  notwithstanding  this,  the  Executive  of  the  nation, 
disregarding  the  advice  of  the  Lieutenant-General  who  com 
mands  the  armies  of  the  United  States,  and  who  had  warned 
him  months  before  of  the  movements  which  were  taking  place 
to  seize  the  public  property  at  the  South,  still  leaves  the  prop 
erty  unprotected;  and  the  insurgents  go  on  in  some  of  the 
states,  before  even  passing  ordinances  of  secession,  and  con 
tinue  to  seize  the  public  property;  to  capture  the  troops  of  the 
United  States;  to  take  possession  of  the  forts;  to  fire  into  its 
vessels;  to  take  down  its  flag;  until  they  have  at  this  time  in 
their  possession  fortifications  which  have  cost  the  Government 
more  than  $5,000,000,  and  which  mount  more  than  a  thousand 
guns. 

All  this  has  been  done  without  any  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  Government  to  protect  the  public  property;  and  this  is  the 
reason  that  secession  has  made  the  head  it  has.  Why,  sir,  let 
me  ask,  is  it  that  the  United  States  to-day  has  possession  of 
Fort  Sumter?  Can  you  tell  me  why  is  Fort  Sumter  in  posses 
sion  of  the  United  States?  Because  there  are  a  hundred  soldiers 


THE   ELECTION   OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    129 

in  it  —  for  no  other  reason.  Why  is  Fort  Moultrie  in  posses 
sion  of  the  insurgents?  Because  there  were  no  men  there  to 
protect  it;  and  it  is  now  matter  of  history  that,  had  the  Execu 
tive  done  his  duty,  and  placed  a  hundred  men  in  Fort  Moultrie, 
a  hundred  in  Castle  Pinckney,  and  a  hundred  in  Fort  Sumter, 
Charleston  Harbor  to-day  would  have  been  open,  and  your 
revenues  would  have  been  collected  there,  as  elsewhere  through 
out  the  United  States. 

Will  it  be  said  that  Carolina  would  have  attacked  those  forts, 
thus  garrisoned?  She  does  not  attack  a  hundred  men  in  Fort 
Sumter.  It  is  a  wonder  that  she  does  not.  The  little,  feeble 
garrison  there  is  well  calculated  to  invite  attack ;  but  this  thing 
of  secession,  under  the  policy  of  the  Administration,  has  been 
made  a  holiday  affair  in  the  South.  This  great  Government, 
one  of  the  most  powerful  on  the  face  of  the  globe,  is  falling  to 
pieces  just  from  its  own  imbecility. 

MR.  WIGFALL.  Mr.  President  — 

THE  PRESIDING  OFFICER  (MR.  BRIGHT).  Does  the  Senator 
from  Illinois  yield  the  floor? 

MR.  TRUMBULL.  I  have  some  further  observations  to  make. 
I  will  yield  for  a  single  question;  not  for  a  speech. 

MR.  WIGFALL.  For  a  single  question.  I  do  not  wish  to  inter 
rupt  the  Senator  if  it  is  not  agreeable  to  him.  I  desire  to  ask  a 
single  question. 

MR.  TRUMBULL.  I  have  no  objection  to  the  question. 

MR.  WIGFALL.  I  understand  the  Senator  to  object  to  the 
course  that  the  present  outgoing  Administration  has  pursued 
in  reference  to  the  forts.  I  know  the  Senator's  candor,  direct 
ness  of  purpose,  fairness,  and  boldness  of  statement;  and  I  desire 
to  know  whether  the  succeeding  Administration  will  pursue  the 
same  peace  policy  of  leaving  the  forts  in  the  possession  of  the 
seceding  states,  or  whether  they  will  attempt  to  recapture  them? 

MR.  TRUMBULL.  The  Senator  will  find  out  my  opinions 
on  this  subject  before  I  conclude.  The  opinions  of  the  incoming 
Administration,  I  trust,  he  will  learn  to-morrow  from  the  east 
ern  front  of  the  capitol. 

MR.  WIGFALL.  I  trust  we  shall,  sir. 

MR.  TRUMBULL.  I  speak  for  myself,  without  knowing  what 
may  be  said  in  the  inaugural  of  to-morrow;  but  I  apprehend 
that  the  Senator  will  learn  to-morrow  that  we  have  a  Govern- 


130  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

ment;  and  that  will  be  the  beginning  of  the  maintenance  of  the 
Union. 

MR.  WIGFALL.  I  hope  we  may. 

MR.  TRUMBULL.  While  the  forts  in  the  South  were  left  thus 
unprotected,  and  to  be  seized  by  the  first  comers,  where  was 
your  army?  Scattered  beyond  reach,  and  sent  to  the  frontiers, 
so  as  not  to  be  made  available  when  it  was  wanted.  And  where 
was  your  navy?  The  navy  of  the  United  States,  when  it  was 
known  that  the  secession  movement  was  on  foot,  was  sent  to 
distant  seas,  until  there  was  not  at  the  command  of  the  Secre 
tary  of  the  Navy  a  single  vessel,  except  one  carrying  two  guns, 
that  could  enter  Charleston  Harbor  —  a  small  vessel  destined, 
I  believe,  to  take  supplies  to  the  African  squadron,  which  car 
ried  two  guns.  Does  anybody  suppose  this  was  accidental?  If 
it  were  a  question  of  fact  to  be  tried  before  an  intelligent  jury 
in  any  part  of  Christendom,  does  any  one  doubt  that  the  Sec 
retary  of  War  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  would  both  be 
convicted  of  having  purposely,  and  by  design,  removed  the 
army  and  navy  out  of  reach,  in  order  that  the  forts  might  be 
seized,  and  that  the  secession  movement  might  progress?  And 
how  has  it  been  from  that  day  to  this?  Irresolution  and  inde 
cision  on  the  part  of  the  Executive  —  one  day  sending  a  ves 
sel  with  troops  to  Charleston,  and  the  next  countermanding  the 
order;  and  the  Senator  from  Texas,  with  a  taste  which  I  cannot 
admire,  spoke  in  terms  of  derision  of  his  country's  flag,  when  it 
returned  in  disgrace —  "struck  in  the  face,"  I  think,  was  his 
expression  —  from  Charleston  Harbor.  I  admit  it  was  disgrace 
ful;  but  I  am  sorry  it  should  have  afforded  the  Senator  from 
Texas,  a  member  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  as  the  elo 
quent  Senator  from  Kentucky  said  he  was,  any  pleasure  that 
such  a  transaction  should  have  occurred. 

This,  then,  briefly,  is  the  reason  that  this  secession  movement 
has  acquired  the  strength  it  has.  It  is  because  this  Govern 
ment  has  either  favored  it,  or  refused  to  do  anything  to  check 
it.  Notwithstanding  the  mistake  of  1854,  the  country  would 
have  survived  it  all,  had  we  had  a  Government  to  take  care  of 
and  preserve  it. 

Now,  sir,  what  are  the  remedies  that  are  proposed  for  the 
present  condition  of  things,  and  what  have  they  been  from  the 
beginning?  They  have  been  propositions  of  compromise;  and 


THE   ELECTION  OF   LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    131 

Senators  have  spoken  of  peace,  and  of  the  horrors  of  civil  war; 
and  gentlemen  who  have  contended  for  the  right  of  the  people 
of  the  territories  to  regulate  their  own  affairs,  and  who  have 
been  horrified  at  the  idea  of  a  geographical  line  dividing  free 
states  from  slave  states,  free  territory  from  slave  territory,  and 
who  have  proclaimed  that  the  great  principle  upon  which  the 
Revolution  was  fought  was  that  of  the  right  of  the  people  to 
govern  themselves,  and  that  it  was  monstrous  doctrine  for 
Congress  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  its  own  territories,  come 
forward  here  with  propositions  to  divide  the  country  on  a  geo 
graphical  line;  and  not  only  that,  but  to  establish  slavery  south 
of  the  line;  and  they  call  this  the  Missouri  Compromise! 
The  proposition  known  as  the  "Crittenden  Proposition"  is  no 
more  like  the  Missouri  Compromise  than  is  the  Government  of 
Turkey  like  that  of  the  United  States.  The  Missouri  Compro 
mise  was  a  law  declaring  that  in  all  the  territory  which  we  had 
acquired  from  Louisiana,  north  of  a  certain  line  of  latitude, 
slavery  or  involuntary  servitude  should  never  exist.  But  it 
said  nothing  about  the  establishment  of  slavery  south  of  that 
line.  It  was  a  compromise  made  in  order  to  admit  Missouri 
into  the  Union  as  a  slave  state,  in  1820.  That  was  the  considera 
tion  for  the  exclusion  of  slavery  from  all  the  country  north  of 
36°  30'.  Now,  sir,  I  have  no  objection  to  the  restoration  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise  as  it  stood  in  1854,  when  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill  passed;  and  I  have  drawn  up  —  and  I  intend  to 
offer  it  at  the  proper  time  as  an  amendment  to  some  of  these 
propositions  —  a  clause  declaring  that  so  much  of  the  four 
teenth  section  of  the  act  to  organize  the  territories  of  Nebraska 
nnd  Kansas,  approved  the  30th  of  May,  1854,  as  repeals  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  and  contains  the  little  stump  speech, 
shall  be  repealed,  and  that  we  may  hear  no  more  of  it,  I  trust, 
forever. 

Since  its  authors  have  repudiated  it,  and  have  come  forward 
with  a  proposition  to  establish  not  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
but  to  establish  a  geographical  line  running  through  the  terri 
tory  which  we  now  have,  establishing  slavery  south  of  it,  and 
prohibiting  it  north,  and  providing  that,  in  the  territory  we 
may  hereafter  acquire,  slavery  shall  be  established  south  of  that 
line,  I  suppose  we  shall  hear  no  more  about  leaving  the  people 
"perfectly  free  to  regulate  their  own  affairs  in  their  own  way"! 


132  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

The  proposition  known  as  the  "Crittenden  Compromise"  de 
clares  not  only  that,  "in  the  territory  south  of  the  said  line  of 
latitude,  slavery  of  the  African  race  is  hereby  recognized  as 
existing,  and  shall  not  be  interfered  with  by  Congress";  but  it 
provides  further,  that,  in  the  territory  we  shall  hereafter  acquire 
south  of  that  line,  slavery  shall  be  recognized,  and  not  inter 
fered  with  by  Congress;  but  "shall  be  protected  as  property 
by  all  the  departments  of  the  territorial  government  during 
its  continuance";  so  that,  if  we  make  acquisitions  on  the  south 
of  territories  now  free,  and  where,  by  the  laws  of  the  land,  the 
footsteps  of  slavery  have  never  been,  the  moment  we  acquire 
jurisdiction  over  them,  the  moment  the  stars  and  stripes  of  the 
Republic  float  over  those  free  territories,  they  carry  with  them 
African  slavery,  established  beyond  the  power  of  Congress,  and 
beyond  the  power  of  any  territorial  legislature,  or  of  the 
people,  to  keep  it  out;  and  we  are  told  that  this  is  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise !  We  are  told  that  slavery  now  exists  in  New 
Mexico;  and  I  was  sorry  to  find  even  my  friend  from  Oregon 
[Mr.  Baker]  ready  to  vote  for  this  proposition,  which  estab 
lishes  slavery.  Why,  sir,  suppose  slavery  does  exist  in  New 
Mexico;  are  you  for  putting  a  clause  into  your  Constitution 
that  the  people  of  New  Mexico  shall  not  drive  it  out? 

But,  sir,  unlike  the  Senator  from  Oregon,  I  will  never  agree 
to  put  into  the  Constitution  of  the  country  a  clause  establish 
ing  or  making  perpetual  slavery  anywhere.  No,  sir;  no  human 
being  shall  ever  be  made  a  slave  by  my  vote.  No  foot  of  God's 
soil  shall  ever  be  dedicated  to  African  slavery  by  my  act  — 
never,  sir.  I  will  not  interfere  with  it  where  I  have  no  author 
ity  by  the  Constitution  to  interfere;  but  I  never  will  consent, 
the  people  of  the  great  Northwest,  numbering  more  in  white 
population  than  all  your  Southern  States  together,  never  will 
consent  by  their  act  to  establish  African  slavery  anywhere. 
Why,  sir,  the  seven  free  states  of  the  Northwest,  at  the  late 
presidential  election,  cast  three  hundred  thousand  more  votes 
than  all  the  fifteen  Southern  States  together.  Senators  talk 
about  the  North  and  the  South,  and  speak  of  having  two  Presi 
dents,  a  Northern  President  and  a  Southern  President,  as  if 
we  had  no  such  country  as  the  Northwest,  more  populous  with 
freemen  than  all  the  South.  The  people  of  the  South  and  the 


THE   ELECTION   OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    133 

people  of  the  East  both  will,  by  and  by,  learn,  if  they  have  not 
already  learned,  that  we  have  a  country,  and  a  great  and  grow 
ing  country,  in  the  Northwest;  a  free  country  —  made  free, 
too,  by  the  act  of  Virginia  herself.  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss 
the  House  Resolution.  I  have  said  on  any  and  all  proper  occa 
sions,  and  am  willing  to  say  at  any  time,  to  our  brethren  of  the 
South,  we  have  no  disposition,  and  never  had  any,  and  have  no 
power,  if  we  had  the  disposition,  to  interfere  with  your  domestic 
institutions. 

I  think,  then,  sir,  that  none  of  these  compromises  will  amount 
to  anything;  but  still  I  am  willing  to  do  this,  and  I  think  if  there 
is  any  difficulty  it  may  be  settled  in  this  way :  three  of  the  states 
of  this  Union,  the  state  of  Kentucky,  the  state  of  New  Jersey, 
and  the  State  of  Illinois,  have  called  upon  Congress  to  call  a 
convention  of  all  the  states  for  the  purpose  of  proposing  amend 
ments  to  the  Constitution.  I  do  not  think  the  Constitution 
needs  amendment.  In  my  judgment,  the  Constitution  as  it  is, 
is  worthy  to  be  lived  up  to  and  supported.  I  doubt  if  we  shall 
better  it;  but  out  of  deference  to  those  states,  one  of  which  is 
my  own  state,  I  am  willing  to  vote  for  the  resolution  which  has 
been  introduced  into  this  body  recommending  to  the  various 
states  to  take  into  consideration  this  proposition  of  calling  a 
convention,  in  order  to  make  such  amendments  as  may  be 
deemed  necessary  by  the  states  themselves  to  this  instrument. 
So  far,  I  am  willing  to  go.  Would  it  not  have  been  better  for 
the  seceding  states  to  have  done  that?  Why  did  they  not  pro 
pose,  instead  of  attempting  hastily  to  break  up  the  Govern 
ment  and  seizing  its  public  property,  to  call  a  convention,  in  the 
constitutional  form,  of  the  various  states,  and  if  the  Federal 
Constitution  needed  amendment,  amend  it  in  that  way.  No  such 
proposition  came  from  them;  but  Kentucky  has  made  the  pro 
position  for  a  convention,  and  I  am  willing  to  meet  her  in  the 
spirit  in  which  it  is  made,  and  am  ready,  for  one,  and  would  be 
glad  if  we  could  all  unitedly  pass  the  resolution  suggesting  to 
the  states  to  call  a  convention  to  make  any  and  all  amendments 
to  the  Constitution  which  the  exigencies  of  the  times  may 
require. 

The  Senator  from  Texas  wants  to  know  how  we  are  going  to 
preserve  the  Union;  how  we  are  going  to  stop  the  states  from 
seceding?  And  our  Southern  friends  sometimes  ask  us  to  give 


134  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

them  something  to  stand  upon  in  the  South.  The  best  political 
foundation  ever  laid  by  mortal  man  upon  which  to  plant  your 
foot  is  the  Constitution.  Take  the  old  Constitution  as  your 
fathers  made  it,  and  go  to  the  people  on  that;  rally  them  around 
it,  and  not  suffer  it  to  be  kicked  about,  rolled  in  the  dust,  spit 
upon,  and  their  efforts  to  be  wasted  in  vain  efforts  to  amend  it. 
Why,  sir,  has  that  old  instrument  ceased  to  be  of  any  value? 
These  gentlemen  who  are  talking  about  amending  it,  and  talking 
about  guarantees  as  a  condition  to  remain  in  the  Union,  claim 
to  be  par  excellence  the  Union  men.  Why,  sir,  I  conceive  I  am 
a  much  better  Union  man  than  they.  I  am  for  the  Union  under 
the  Constitution  as  it  is.  I  am  willing,  however,  that  a  con 
vention  should  be  called  out  of  deference  to  those  who  may 
wish  to  alter  it;  but  I  am  not  one  of  those  who  declare  that  un 
less  this  provision  is  made,  and  unless  this  guarantee  is  given, 
I  will  unite  to  destroy  the  Union,  and  cease  to  observe  the 
Constitution  as  it  is. 

Sir,  the  Southern  States  have  been  arming.  The  Senator 
from  Virginia  [Mr.  Mason]  told  us  the  other  day  that  his  state 
had  appropriated  $1,500,000  to  arm  its  citizens.  For  what?  To 
arm  its  citizens  to  fight  against  this  Government;  and  then  tell 
us  that,  to  a  man,  they  will  fight  against  this  Government,  if 
it  undertakes  to  enforce  its  laws,  which  they  call  coercion,  the 
coercion  of  a  State!  Why,  sir,  a  government  that  has  not  the 
power  of  coercing  obedience  to  its  laws  is  no  government  at  all. 
The  very  idea  of  a  law  without  a  sanction  is  an  absurdity.  A 
government  is  not  worth  having  that  has  not  power  to  enforce 
its  laws.  If  the  Senator  from  Texas  wants  to  know  my  opinion, 
I  tell  him  yes,  I  am  for  enforcing  the  laws.  Do  you  mean  by  that 
you  are  going  to  march  an  army  to  coerce  a  state?  No,  sir;  and 
I  do  not  mean  the  people  of  this  country  to  be  misled  by  this 
confusion  of  terms  about  coercing  a  state.  The  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  operates  upon  individuals;  the  laws  oper 
ate  upon  individuals;  and  whenever  individuals  make  them 
selves  amenable  to  the  laws,  I  would  punish  them  according 
to  the  laws.  We  may  not  always  be  able  to  do  this.  Why,  sir, 
we  have  a  criminal  code,  and  laws  punishing  larceny  and  mur 
der  and  arson  and  robbery  and  all  these  crimes;  and  yet  murder 
is  committed,  larcenies  and  robberies  are  committed,  and  the 
culprits  are  not  always  punished  and  brought  to  justice.  We 


THE   ELECTION  OF   LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    135 

may  not  be  able,  in  all  instances,  to  punish  those  who  conspire 
against  the  Government.  So  far  as  it  can  be  done,  I  am  for  exe 
cuting  the  laws;  and  I  am  for  coercion.  I  am  for  settling,  in  the 
first  place,  the  question  whether  we  have  a  government  before 
making  compromises  which  leave  us  as  powerless  as  before. 

Sir,  if  my  friend  from  Kentucky  would  employ  some  of  that 
eloquence  of  his  which  he  uses  in  appealing  to  Republicans  — 
and  talking  about  compromise  —  in  defense  of  the  Constitu 
tion  as  it  is,  and  in  favor  of  maintaining  the  laws  and  the  Govern 
ment,  we  should  see  a  very  different  state  of  things  in  the  coun 
try.  If,  instead  of  coming  forward  with  compromises,  instead 
of  asking  guarantees,  he  had  put  the  fault  where  it  belongs;  if 
he  called  upon  the  Government  to  do  its  duty;  if,  instead  of 
blaming  the  North  for  not  making  concessions  where  there  is 
nothing  to  concede,  and  not  making  compromises  where  there 
was  nothing  to  compromise  about,  he  had  appealed  to  the  South, 
which  was  in  rebellion  against  the  Government,  and  painted 
before  them,  as  only  he  could  do  it,  the  hideousness  of  the 
crimes  they  were  committing,  and  called  upon  them  to  return 
to  their  allegiance,  and  upon  the  Government  to  enforce  its 
authority,  we  would  have  a  very  different  state  of  things  in 
this  country  to-day  from  what  now  exists. 

This,  in  my  judgment,  is  the  way  to  preserve  the  Union;  and 
I  do  not  expect  civil  war  to  follow  from  it.  You  have  only  to 
put  the  Government  in  a  position  to  make  itself  respected,  and 
it  will  command  respect.  As  I  said  before,  five  hundred  troops 
in  Charleston  would  unquestionably  have  kept  that  port  open; 
and  if  you  will  arm  the  Government  with  sufficient  authority 
to  maintain  its  laws  and  give  us  an  honest  Executive,  I  think 
you  will  find  the  spread  of  secession  soon  checked;  it  will  no 
longer  be  a  holiday  affair.  But  while  we  submit  to  the  disgrace 
which  is  heaped  upon  us  by  those  seceding  states,  while  the 
President  of  the  United  States  says,  "You  have  no  right  to 
secede;  but  if  you  want  to,  you  may,  we  cannot  help  it,"  you 
may  expect  secession  to  spread. 

Why,  sir,  the  resolutions  of  the  legislature  of  the  state  of 
New  York,  which  were  passed  early  in  the  session,  tendering 
to  the  Federal  Government  all  the  resources  of  the  state  in 
money  and  men  to  maintain  the  Government,  had  a  most 
salutary  effect  when  it  was  heard  here.  I  saw  the  effect  of  it  at 


136  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

once.  It  was  the  first  blow  at  secession.  Let  the  people  of  the 
North  understand  that  their  services  are  required  to  maintain 
this  Union,  and  let  them  make  known  to  the  people  of  the 
South,  to  the  Government,  and  to  the  country,  that  the  Union 
shall  be  maintained;  and  the  object  is  accomplished.  Then  you 
will  find  Union  men  in  the  South.  But  while  this  secession  fever 
was  spreading,  and  the  Union  men  of  the  South  had  no  support 
from  their  Government,  it  is  no  wonder  that  state  after  state 
undertook  to  withdraw  from  a  confederacy  which  manifested 
no  disposition  to  maintain  itself. 

My  remedy  for  existing  difficulties  is,  to  clothe  the  Govern 
ment  with  sufficient  power  to  maintain  itself;  and  when  that  is 
done,  and  you  have  an  Executive  with  the  disposition  to  main 
tain  the  authority  of  the  Government,  I  do  not  believe  that  a 
gun  need  be  fired  to  stop  the  further  spread  of  secession.  I  be 
lieve,  sir,  after  the  new  Administration  goes  into  operation,  and 
the  people  of  the  South  see,  by  its  acts,  that  it  is  resolved  to 
maintain  its  authority,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  make  no  en 
croachments  whatever  upon  the  rights  of  the  people  of  the 
South,  the  desire  to  secede  will  subside.  When  the  people  of  the 
Southern  States,  on  the  5th  of  March,  this  year,  and  on  the 
5th  of  March,  1862,  shall  find  that,  after  a  year  has  transpired 
under  a  Republican  administration,  they  are  just  as  safe  in  all 
their  rights,  just  as  little  interfered  with  in  regard  to  their  do 
mestic  institutions,  as  under  any  former  Administration,  they 
will  have  no  disposition  to  inaugurate  civil  war  and  commence 
an  attack  upon  the  Federal  Government. 

Why,  sir,  some  Senators  talk  about  the  Federal  Government 
making  war.  Who  proposes  it?  The  Southern  people  affect  to 
abhor  civil  war,  when  they,  themselves,  have  commenced  it. 
Inhabitants  of  the  six  seceding  states  have  begun  the  war.  What 
is  war?  Is  firing  into  your  vessels  war?  Is  investing  your  forts 
war?  Is  seizing  your  arsenals  war?  They  have  done  it  all,  and 
more;  and  then  have  the  effrontery  to  say  to  the  United  States, 
"Do  not  defend  yourselves;  do  not  protect  your  Government; 
let  it  fall  to  pieces;  let  us  do  as  we  please,  or  else  you  will  have 
war."  The  highwayman  meets  you  on  the  street,  demands  your 
purse,  and  tells  you  to  deliver  it  up,  or  you  will  have  a  fight. 
You  can  always  escape  a  fight  by  submission.  If  in  the  right 
—  and  which  is  far  better  than  to  submit  to  degradation  — 


THE  ELECTION  OF  LINCOLN  —  SECESSION    137 

you  can  often  escape  collision  by  being  prepared  to  meet  it. 
The  moment  the  highwayman  discovers  your  preparation  and 
ability  to  meet  him,  he  flees  away.  Let  the  Government  be 
prepared,  and  we  shall  have  no  collision. 

I  cannot  think  the  people  of  this  country  in  the  loyal  states 
would  causelessly  inaugurate  civil  war  by  attacking  the  Govern 
ment;  and  I  regard  all  the  states  as  loyal,  which  have  not  under 
taken  to  secede.  I  regard  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  and  Missouri 
as  loyal  states,  just  as  much  so  as  Illinois.  Why,  sir,  I  live  right 
upon  the  borders  of  Missouri,  and  I  know  that  the  people  across 
the  river  were,  last  fall,  just  as  good  Union  men  as  they  were  in 
Illinois.  They  never  thought  of  secession  until  the  thing  was 
started  in  South  Carolina,  and  until  some  persons  here  in  Con 
gress  began  to  talk  about  guarantees,  instead  of  coming  out 
for  the  Constitution  and  the  Union  as  they  are.  When  Senators 
began  to  introduce  propositions  demanding  guarantees  as  a 
condition  of  continuing  in  the  Union,  the  real  true  Union  men, 
in  many  instances,  took  sides  with  them,  and  thus  became,  in 
fact,  only  conditional  Unionists.  I  am  happy  to  say  that  they 
are  getting  over  it,  not  only  in  Missouri,  but  they  are  already 
cured  of  it  in  Tennessee,  and  I  trust  in  all  the  other  states  save 
those  which,  in  their  hurry,  and  with  inconsiderate  zeal,  have 
already  taken  measures,  as  far  as  they  could,  to  dissolve  their 
connection  with  the  Government.  Sir,  I  cannot  think  it  possible 
that  this  great  Government  is  to  go  out  without  a  struggle  — 
a  Government  which  has  been  blessed  so  highly,  and  prospered 
so  greatly.  What  occasion  is  there  for  breaking  it  up?  Are  we 
not  the  happiest  people  in  the  world?  Do  we  not  enjoy  personal 
liberty  and  religious  freedom?  What  is  it  that  the  people  of  these 
Southern  States  would  have?  Does  anybody  propose  to  inter 
fere  with  their  domestic  institutions?  Nobody.  Does  anybody 
deny  their  equal  rights  in  the  territories?  Nobody.  Why,  sir, 
look  at  our  condition.  We  are  one  of  the  great  nations  of  the 
world.  At  the  peace  of  1788,  we  had,  I  think,  something  like 
three  million  population;  we  have  now  more  than  thirty  mil 
lion.  At  that  time  we  had  thirteen  states;  now  we  have  thirty- 
four  states;  and  our  territories  have  spread  out  until  they  ex 
tend  across  the  continent.  The  boundaries  of  the  Republic 
embrace  to-day  a  greater  extent  of  country  than  was  contained 
within  the  Roman  Empire  in  the  days  of  its  greatest  extent, 


138  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

or  within  the  empire  of  Alexander  when  he  was  said  to  have 
conquered  the  world. 

Sir,  I  cannot  believe  that  this  mad  and  insane  attempt  to 
break  up  such  a  Government  is  to  succeed.  If  my  voice  could 
reach  them,  I  would  call  upon  my  Southern  brethren  to  pause, 
to  reflect,  to  consider  if  this  Republican  party  has  yet  done 
them  any  wrong.  What  complaints  have  they  to  make  against 
us?  We  have  never  wielded  the  power  of  Government  —  not  for 
a  day.  Have  you  of  the  South  suffered  any  wrong  at  the  hands 
of  the  Federal  Government?  If  you  have,  you  inflicted  it  your 
selves.  We  have  not  done  it.  Is  it  the  apprehension  that  you 
are  going  to  suffer  wrong  at  our  hands?  We  tell  you  that  we 
intend  no  such  thing.  Will  you,  then,  break  up  such  a  govern 
ment  as  this,  on  the  apprehension  that  we  are  all  hypocrites 
and  deceivers,  and  do  not  mean  what  we  say?  Wait,  I  beseech 
you,  until  the  Government  is  put  into  operation  under  this 
new  administration;  wait  until  you  hear  the  inaugural  from  the 
President-elect;  and,  I  doubt  not,  it  will  breathe  as  well  a  spirit 
of  conciliation  and  kindness  towards  the  South  as  towards  the 
North.  While  I  trust  it  will  disclose  a  resolute  purpose  to  main 
tain  the  Government,  I  doubt  not  it  will  also  declare,  in  un 
equivocal  terms,  that  no  encroachments  shall  be  made  upon 
the  constitutional  rights  of  any  state  while  he  who  delivers  it 
remains  in  power. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

CABINET-MAKING  —  THE   DEATH   OF   DOUGLAS 

DURING  all  this  storm  and  stress  the  President-elect 
was  at  home  struggling  with  office-seekers.  They  came  in 
swarms  from  all  points  of  the  compass,  and  in  the  great 
est  numbers  from  Illinois.  Judging  from  the  Trumbull 
papers  alone  it  is  safe  to  say  that  Illinois  could  have  filled 
every  office  in  the  national  Blue  Book  without  satisfying 
half  the  demands.  Every  considerable  town  had  several 
candidates  for  its  own  post-office,  and  the  applicants  were 
generally  men  who  had  real  claims  by  reason  of  party 
service  and  personal  character  for  the  positions  which 
they  sought.  But  there  were  exceptions,  and  Trumbull 
brought  trouble  on  his  own  head  many  times  by  taking 
part  in  the  melee.  Yet  there  seemed  to  be  no  way  of 
escape,  even  if  he  had  wished  to  stand  aloof.  The  day  of 
civil  service  reform  had  not  yet  dawned.  Time  has  kindly 
dropped  its  veil  over  those  struggles  except  as  relates  to 
Lincoln's  Cabinet.  The  selection  of  the  Cabinet  will  be 
considered  chronologically  so  far  as  the  Trumbull  papers 
throw  light  on  it. 

On  his  journey  to  Washington  for  the  coming  session 
of  Congress,  Trumbull  stopped  a  few  days  in  New  York. 
While  there  he  received  a  call  from  three  gentlemen,  who 
were  a  sub-committee  of  a  larger  number  who  had  been 
chosen,  by  the  opponents  of  the  Weed  overlordship  in 
New  York  politics,  to  call  upon  Lincoln  and  remonstrate 
against  the  appointment  of  Seward  as  a  member  of  his 
Cabinet.  The  three  men  were  William  C.  Bryant,  William 


140  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Curtis  Noyes,  and  A.  Mann,  Jr.  They  said  that  finding  it 
impracticable  to  see  Lincoln,  they  had  decided  to  call 
upon  Trumbull  and  ask  him  to  present  their  views  to 
the  President-elect.  Although  Trumbull  disclaimed  any 
peculiar  knowledge  or  influence  in  respect  of  Cabinet 
appointments,  they  proceeded  to  make  their  wishes 
known.  They  said  that  a  division  had  taken  place  in  the 
Republican  party  of  New  York,  growing  out  of  corruption 
at  Albany  during  the  last  session  of  the  legislature,  in 
which  many  Republicans  were  implicated;  that  so  strong 
was  the  feeling  against  certain  transactions  there,  that 
but  for  the  presidential  election  the  Republicans  would 
have  lost  the  state  in  November;  and  that  unless  the 
transactions  were  repudiated  by  the  coming  legislature 
the  party  would  be  beaten  next  year.  They  did  not  con 
nect  Governor  Seward  personally  with  these  transactions, 
but  said  that  several  of  his  particular  and  most  intimate 
friends,  whom  they  named,  were  implicated,  and  that  if 
he  went  into  the  Cabinet  he  would  draw  them  after  him. 

Trumbull  suggested  to  them  that  if  Governor  Seward 
went  into  the  Cabinet,  as  many  people  considered  to  be 
his  due,  it  did  not  necessarily  follow  that  he  would  control 
the  patronage  of  New  York.  Mr.  Mann,  however,  thought 
that  this  would  be  inevitable.  He  and  Mr.  Bryant  and 
Mr.  Noyes  expressed  the  opinion  that  Seward  did  not  de 
sire  to  go  into  the  Cabinet  unless  he  could  control  the 
patronage  and  thus  serve  his  friends.  They  said  they  had 
no  name  to  propose  as  a  New  York  member  of  the  Cabi 
net,  but  they  did  not  want  the  load  of  the  Albany  plun 
derers  put  upon  them,  and  that  if  it  were  so  the  party  in 
New  York  would  be  ruined. 

The  purport  of  this  interview  was  communicated  by 
Trumbull  to  Lincoln  by  letter  dated  Washington,  Decem 
ber  2,  1860.  Lincoln  replied  as  follows: 


CABINET-MAKING  141 

Private 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  Dec.  8,  1860. 
HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  Yours  of  the  2nd  is  received.  I  regret  exceed 
ingly  the  anxiety  of  our  friends  in  New  York,  of  whom  you 
write;- but  it  seems  to  me  the  sentiment  in  that  State  which 
sent  a  united  delegation  to  Chicago  in  favor  of  Gov.  Seward 
ought  not  and  must  not  be  snubbed,  as  it  would  be,  by  the 
omission  to  offer  Gov.  S.  a  place  in  the  Cabinet.  I  will  myself 
take  care  of  the  question  of  "corrupt  jobs"  and  see  that  justice  is 
done  to  all  our  friends  of  whom  you  wrote,  as  well  as  others. 

I  have  written  to  Mr.  Hamlin  on  this  very  subject  of  Gov.  S. 
and  requested  him  to  consult  fully  with  you.  He  will  show  you 
my  note  and  enclosures  to  him;  and  then  please  act  as  therein 
requested. 

Yours  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

The  enclosures  were  a  formal  tender  of  the  office  of 
Secretary  of  State  to  Seward  and  a  private  letter  to  him 
urging  his  acceptance  of  the  appointment.  The  note  to 
Hamlin  requested  that  if  he  and  Trumbull  concurred  in 
the  step,  the  letters  should  be  handed  to  Seward.  They 
were  promptly  delivered. 

As  matters  stood  at  that  time  it  was  certainly  due  to 
Seward  that  a  place  in  the  Cabinet  should  be  offered  to 
him  and  that  it  should  be  the  foremost  place.  He  was 
still  the  intellectual  premier  of  the  party  and  nobody 
could  impair  his  influence  but  himself.  The  principal 
scheme  at  Albany,  to  which  Bryant  and  his  colleagues 
alluded,  was  a  "gridiron"  street  railroad  bill  for  New 
York  City,  for  which  Weed  was  the  political  engineer. 

Trumbull  saw  Horace  Greeley  at  this  time.  The  latter 
would  not  recommend  taking  a  Cabinet  officer  from  New 
York  at  all,  but  he  did  suggest  giving  the  mission  to  France 
to  John  C.  Fremont.  If  this  advice  had  been  followed, 
and  Fremont  had  been  kept  out  of  the  country,  Lincoln 


142  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

would  have  been  spared  one  of  the  most  terrible  thorns 
in  the  side  of  his  Administration;  but  fate  ordained  other 
wise,  for  when  Cameron  was  taken  into  the  Cabinet  it 
became  necessary  to  provide  a  place  for  Dayton,  and 
Paris  was  chosen  for  that  purpose. 

The  Cameron  affair  was  the  greatest  embarrassment 
that  Lincoln  had  to  deal  with  before  his  inauguration.  It 
was  a  fact  of  evil  omen  that  David  Davis,  one  of  the  dele 
gates  of  Illinois  to  the  Chicago  Convention,  assuming  to 
speak  by  authority,  made  promises  that  Simon  Cameron, 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  Caleb  Smith,  of  Indiana,  should 
have  places  in  the  Cabinet  if  Lincoln  were  elected.  In  so 
doing,  Davis  went  counter  to  the  only  instructions  he 
had  ever  received  from  Lincoln  on  that  subject.  The  day 
before  the  nomination  was  made,  the  editor  of  the  Spring 
field  Journal  arrived  at  the  rooms  of  the  Illinois  delega 
tion  with  a  copy  of  the  Missouri  Democrat,  in  which  Lin 
coln  had  marked  three  passages  and  made  some  of  his  own 
comments  on  the  margin.  Then  he  added,  in  words  under 
scored:  "Make  no  contracts  that  will  bind  me."  Herndon 
says  that  this  paper  was  read  aloud  to  Davis,  Judd,  Logan, 
and  himself.  Davis  then  argued  that  Lincoln,  being  at 
Springfield,  could  not  judge  of  the  necessities  of  the  situa 
tion  in  Chicago ,  and ,  acting  upon  that  view  of  the  case,  went 
ahead  with  his  negotiations  with  the  men  of  Pennsylvania 
and  Indiana,  and  made  the  promises  as  above  stated.1 

Gideon  Welles,  in  his  book  on  Lincoln  and  Seward,  says 
there  was  but  one  member  of  the  Cabinet  appointed  "on 
the  special  urgent  recommendation  and  advice  of  Seward 
and  his  friends,  but  that  gentleman  was  soon,  with 
Se ward's  approval,  transferred  to  Hyperborean  regions 
in  a  way  and  for  reasons  never  publicly  made  known." 
That  man  was  Cameron. 

1  Life  of  Lincoln,  by  Herndon- Weik,  2d  edition,  in.  172,  181. 


CABINET-MAKING  143 

The  implication  here  is  that  Simon  Cameron  was  ap 
pointed  a  member  of  Lincoln's  Cabinet  in  consequence  of 
Seward's  influence,  and  at  his  desire.  That  Seward  and 
Weed  labored  for  Cameron's  appointment,  and  that  Weed 
had  private  reasons  for  doing  so,  is  true,  but  the  control 
ling  factor  was  something  of  earlier  date.  David  Davis 
had  left  his  comfortable  home  at  Bloomington  and  gone 
to  Springfield  to  redeem  his  convention  pledges.  He 
camped  alongside  of  Lincoln  and  laid  siege  to  him.  He 
had  a  very  strong  case  prima  facie.  He  had  not  only 
worked  for  Lincoln  with  all  his  might,  but  he  had  paid 
three  hundred  dollars  out  of  his  own  pocket  for  the  rent 
of  the  Lincoln  headquarters  during  the  convention.  This 
seems  like  a  small  sum  now,  but  it  was  three  times  as 
much  as  Lincoln  himself  could  have  paid  then  for  any 
political  purpose.  Moreover,  Davis  had  actually  suc 
ceeded  in  what  he  had  undertaken.1 

A.  K.  McClure  says,  in  his  book  on  "  Lincoln  and  Men 
of  War  Times  "  (p.  139),  that  the  men  who  immediately 
represented  Cameron  on  that  occasion  (John  P.  Sander 
son  and  Alexander  Cummings)  really  had  little  influence 
with  the  Pennsylvania  delegation,  and  that  the  change  of 
votes  from  Cameron  to  Lincoln  was  not  due  to  this  barter. 

Nicolay  and  Hay  say  that  after  the  election  Lincoln 
invited  Cameron  to  come  to  Springfield,  but  they  produce 
no  evidence  to  that  effect.  On  the  other  hand,  Gideon 

1  David  Davis's  habit  of  coercing  Lincoln  was  once  complained  of  by 
Lincoln  himself,  as  related  in  a  letter  (now  in  the  possession  of  Jesse  W.  Weik) 
of  Henry  C.  Whitney  to  Wm.  H.  Herndon.  Whitney  says  : 

"On  March  5,  1861,  I  saw  Lincoln  and  requested  him  to  appoint  Jim 
Somers  of  Champaign  to  a  small  clerkship.  Lincoln  was  very  impatient  and 
said  abruptly  :  '  There  is  Davis,  with  that  way  of  making  a  man  do  a  thing 
whether  he  wants  to  or  not,  who  has  forced  me  to  appoint  Archy  Williams 
judge  in  Kansas  right  off  and  John  Jones  to  a  place  in  the  State  Depart 
ment  ;  and  I  have  got  a  bushel  of  despatches  from  Kansas  wanting  to  know 
if  I  'in  going  to  fill  up  all  the  offices  from  Illinois.' " 


144  LYMAN  TRTJMBULL 

Welles,  quoting  from  an  interview  with  Fogg,  of  New 
Hampshire  (a  first-rate  authority),  says  that  Cameron 
tried  to  get  an  invitation  to  Springfield,  but  that  Lincoln 
would  not  give  it;  that  a  little  later  Cameron  invited 
Leonard  Swett  to  his  home  at  Lochiel,  Pennsylvania,  and 
that  while  there  Swett  took  upon  himself  to  extend  such 
an  invitation  in  Lincoln's  name,  and  that  Lincoln,  al 
though  surprised,  was  obliged  to  acquiesce  in  what  Swett 
had  done.1  Swett,  it  may  be  remarked,  was  the  Fidus 
Achates  of  David  Davis  at  all  times. 

Cameron  came  to  Springfield  with  a  troop  of  followers, 
and  the  result  was  that,  on  the  31st  of  December,  Lincoln 
handed  him  a  brief  note  saying  that  he  intended  to  nomi 
nate  him  for  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  Secretary  of 
War,  at  the  proper  time. 

Almost  immediately  thereafter  he  received  a  shock 
from  A.  K.  McClure  in  the  form  of  a  telegram  saying  that 
the  appointment  of  Cameron  would  split  the  party  in 
Pennsylvania  and  do  irreparable  harm  to  the  new  Admin 
istration.  He  invited  McClure  to  come  to  Springfield  and 
give  him  the  particular  reasons,  but  McClure  does  not  tell 
us  what  the  reasons  were.  Evidently  they  were  graver 
and  deeper  than  a  mere  faction  fight  in  the  party,  or 
a  question  whether  Cameron  or  Curtin  should  have  the 
disposal  of  the  patronage.  They  included  personal  as 
well  as  political  delinquencies,  but  McClure  declined  to 
put  them  in  writing. 

After  hearing  them,  Lincoln  wrote  another  letter  to 
Cameron  dated  January  3,  1861,  asking  him  to  decline 
the  appointment  that  had  been  previously  tendered  to 
him,  and  to  do  so  at  once  by  telegraph.  Cameron  did  not 
decline.  Consequently  Lincoln  repeated  the  request  ten 
days  later,  January  13. 

1  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  n,  390. 


CABINET-MAKING  145 

In  the  mean  time  Trumbull,  having  learned  that  a 
place  in  the  Cabinet — probably  the  Treasury — had  been 
offered  to  Cameron,  wrote  a  letter  to  Lincoln,  dated  Jan 
uary  3,  advising  him  not  to  appoint  him.  To  this  letter 
Lincoln  wrote  the  following  reply : 

Very  Confidential 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  Jan.  7,  1861. 
HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL, 

MY  DEAR  SIR:  Yours  of  the  3d  is  just  received.  .  .  .  Gen.  C. 
has  not  been  offered  the  Treasury  and  I  think  will  not  be.  It 
seems  to  me  not  only  highly  proper  but  a  necessity  that  Gov. 
Chase  shall  take  that  place.  His  ability,  firmness,  and  purity 
of  character  produce  this  propriety ;  and  that  he  alone  can  recon 
cile  Mr.  Bryant  and  his  class  to  the  appointment  of  Gov.  S.  to 
the  State  Department  produces  the  necessity.  But  then  comes 
the  danger  that  the  protectionists  of  Pennsylvania  will  be  dis 
satisfied;  and  to  clear  this  difficulty  Gen.  C.  must  be  brought 
to  cooperate.  He  would  readily  do  this  for  the  War  Depart 
ment.  But  then  comes  the  fierce  opposition  to  his  having  any 
Department,  threatening  even  to  send  charges  into  the  Senate 
to  procure  his  rejection  by  that  body.  Now,  what  I  would  most 
like,  and  what  I  think  he  should  prefer  too,  under  the  circum 
stances,  would  be  to  retain  his  place  in  the  Senate,  and  if  that 
place  has  been  promised  to  another  let  that  other  take  a  respect 
able  and  reasonably  lucrative  place  abroad.  Also,  let  Gen.  C.'s 
friends  be,  with  entire  fairness,  cared  for  in  Pennsylvania  and 
elsewhere.  I  may  mention  before  closing  that  besides  the  very 
fixed  opposition  to  Gen.  C.  he  is  more  amply  recommended  for 
a  place  in  the  Cabinet  than  any  other  man.  .  .  . 
Yours  as  ever, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

It  is  easy  to  read  two  facts  between  these  lines:  first, 
that  although  Lincoln  had  written  a  letter  four  days 
earlier  withdrawing  his  offer  to  Cameron,  some  influence 
had  intervened  to  cause  new  hesitations;  second,  that 
Lincoln  knew  that  Cameron  ought  not  to  be  taken  into 
the  Cabinet  at  all,  and  that  he  was  now  seeking  some  way 


146  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

to  buy  him  off.  The  cause  of  the  new  hesitation  was  that 
David  Davis  was  clinging  to  him  like  a  burr.  The  last 
observation  in  the  letter  to  Trumbull,  that  Cameron 
was  more  amply  recommended  for  a  place  in  the  Cabinet 
than  any  other  man,  points  to  the  activity  of  Seward  and 
Weed  in  Cameron's  behalf,  of  which  Welles  gives  details 
in  the  interview  with  Fogg  above  mentioned. 

Before  Lincoln's  letter  of  the  7th  reached  Trumbull, 
the  latter  wrote  the  following,  giving  his  objections  to 
Cameron  more  in  detail : 

WASHINGTON,  Jan.  10,  1861. 
HON.  A.  LINCOLN, 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  My  last  to  you  was  written  in  a  hurry  —  in 
the  midst  of  business  in  the  Senate,  and  I  have  not  a  precise 
recollection  of  its  terms  —  but  I  desire  now  to  write  you  a  little 
more  fully  in  regard  to  this  Cameron  movement,  and  in  doing 
so,  I  have  no  other  desire  than  the  success  of  our  Administra 
tion.  Cameron  is  very  generally  regarded  as  a  trading,  unscrup 
ulous  politician.  He  has  not  the  confidence  of  our  best  men. 
He  is  a  great  manager  and  by  his  schemes  has  for  the  moment 
created  an  apparent  public  sentiment  in  Penna.  in  his  favor. 
Many  of  the  persons  who  are  most  strenuously  urging  his  ap 
pointment  are  doubtless  doing  it  in  anticipation  of  a  compen 
sation.  It  is  rather  an  ungracious  matter  to  interfere  to  oppose 
his  selection  and  hence  those  who  believe  him  unfit  and  un 
worthy  of  the  place 

[Copy  illegible  ] 

seems  to  me  he  is  totally  unfit  for  the  Treasury  Department. 
You  may  perhaps  ask,  how,  if  these  things  are  true,  does  he 
have  so  many  friends,  and  such,  to  support  him,  and  such  repre 
sentative  men.  I  am  surprised  at  it,  but  the  world  is  full  of 
great  examples  of  men  succeeding  for  a  time  by  intrigue  and 
management.  Report  says  that  C.  secured  Wilmot  in  his  favor 
by  assurances  of  support  for  the  Senate,  and  then  secured 
Cowan  by  abandoning  W.  at  the  last.  The  men  who  make  the 
charges  against  Cameron  are  not  all,  I  am  sure,  either  his  per 
sonal  enemies,  or  governed  by  prejudice.  Another  very  serious 
objection  to  Cameron  is  his  connection  with  Gov.  Seward.  The 


CABINET-MAKING  147 

Governor  is  a  man  who  acts  through  others  and  men  believe 
that  Cameron  would  be  his  instrument  in  the  Cabinet.  It  is 
my  decided  conviction  that  C.'s  selection  would  be  a  great 
mistake  and  it  is  a  pity  he  is 

[Copy  illegible] 

Gov.  Seward's  appointment  is  acquiesced  in  by  all  our  friends. 
Some  wish  it  were  not  so,  but  regard  it  rather  as  a  necessity, 
and  are  not  disposed  to  complain.  There  is  a  very  general 
desire  here  to  have  Gov.  Chase  go  into  the  Cabinet  and  in  that 
wish  I  most  heartily  concur.  In  my  judgment  you  had  better 
put  Chase  in  the  Cabinet  and  leave  Cameron  out,  even  at  the 
risk  of  a  rupture  with  the  latter,  but  I  am  satisfied  he  can  be 
got  along  with.  He  is  an  exacting  man,  but  in  the  end  will  put 
up  with  what  he  can  get.  He  cannot  get  along  in  hostility  to 
you,  and  when  treated  fairly,  and  as  he  ought  to  be,  will  acqui 
esce.  This  letter  is,  of  course,  strictly  confidential. 

There  is  a  reaction  here  and  the  danger  of  an  attack  on 
Washington  is,  I  think,  over. 

Very  truly  your  friend, 

LYMAN  TRUMBULL. 

The  newspapers  soon  got  hold  of  the  fact  that  a  place 
in  the  Cabinet  had  been  offered  to  Cameron.  They  did 
not  learn  that  he  had  been  asked  to  decline  it.  Letters 
began  to  reach  Trumbull  urging  him  to  use  his  influence 
to  prevent  such  a  calamity.  For  example: 

James  H.  Van  Alen,  New  York,  January  8,  says  honest  men 
of  all  parties  were  shocked  by  the  rumor  of  Cameron's  appoint 
ment  to  the  Treasury.  This  evening  Judge  Hogeboom  and  Mr. 
Opdycke  leave  for  Springfield  and  Messrs.  D.  D.  Field  and 
Barney  for  Washington  to  make  their  urgent  protest  against 
the  act.  Says  he  has  written  to  Lincoln  and  forwarded  extracts 
from  congressional  documents  in  relation  to  Simon  Cameron's 
actions  as  commissioner  to  settle  the  claims  of  the  half-breed 
Winnebago  Indians.  Refers  to  the  Congressional  Globe,  25th 
Congress,  3d  Session,  p.  194. 

E.  Peck,  Springfield,  January  10,  says  all  the  Chicago  mem 
bers  of  the  legislature  took  such  steps  as  they  could  to  prevent 
the  appointment  of  Cameron,  believing  him  not  to  be  a  proper 


148  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

man  for  any  place  in  the  Cabinet.  If  he  goes  in,  it  will  not  be 
as  the  head  of  the  Treasury  Department.  Understands  that 
Chase  was  offered  the  Treasury,  but  did  not  accept. 

C.  H.  Ray,  Springfield,  January  16,  thinks  that  the  Cameron 
business  should  be  brought  to  a  halt  by  some  decisive  action 
among  the  Republicans  in  Senate  and  House.  Says  Lincoln 
sees  the  error  into  which  he  has  fallen,  and  would,  most  likely, 
be  glad  to  recede;  but,  except  a  dozen  letters,  he  hears  only 
from  the  Cameron  and  Weed  gang. 

E.  Peck,  Springfield,  February  1,  says  David  Davis  is  quite 
"huffy"  because  of  the  objections  raised  to  Cameron  and  be 
cause  Smith,  of  Indiana,  is  not  at  once  admitted  to  the  Cabinet. 

William  Butler  (state  treasurer),  Springfield,  February  7, 
says  that  last  evening  he  had  a  confidential  conversation  with 
Lincoln,  who  told  him  that  the  appointment  of  Cameron,  or  his 
intimation  to  Cameron  that  he  would  offer  him  a  place  in  the 
Cabinet,  had  given  him  more  trouble  than  anything  else  that 
he  had  yet  encountered.  He  had  made  up  his  mind  that  after 
reaching  Washington  he  would  first  send  for  Cameron  and  say 
to  him  that  he  intended  to  submit  the  question  of  his  appoint 
ment  to  the  Republican  Senators;  that  he  should  call  them 
together  for  consultation,  but  would  leave  Cameron  out,  as  the 
question  to  be  considered  would  be  solely  in  reference  to  him; 
and  that  he  (Lincoln)  wished  to  deal  frankly  and  for  the  good 
of  the  party.  Butler  thinks  it  would  be  disastrous  to  Cameron 
to  go  into  the  Cabinet  under  such  circumstances. 

Norman  B.  Judd,  of  Chicago,  was  also  expecting  a 
place  in  the  Cabinet.  He  was  a  lawyer  by  profession  and 
general  attorney  of  the  Chicago  and  Rock  Island  Rail 
road.  He  had  been  a  member  of  the  State  Senate,  where 
he  contributed  largely  to  Trumbull's  first  election  to  the 
United  States  Senate,  after  which  he  had  been  devoted 
to  Trumbull's  political  interests  and  no  less  to  Lincoln's. 
He  was  chairman  of  the  Republican  State  Committee 
and  a  member  of  the  National  Committee.  He  had  been 
a  delegate-at-large  to  the  Chicago  Convention,  where  he 
had  worked  untiringly  and  effectively  for  Lincoln's  nomi- 


CABINET-MAKING  149 

nation.  He  was  not  a  man  of  ideas,  but  was  fertile  in 
expedients.  In  politics  he  was  a  "trimmer,"  sly,  cat-like, 
and  mysterious,  and  thus  he  came  to  be  considered  more 
farseeing  then  he  really  was;  but  he  was  jovial,  compan 
ionable,  and  popular  with  the  boys  who  looked  after  the 
primaries  and  the  nominating  conventions.  Both  as  a 
legislator  and  a  party  manager  his  reputation  was  good, 
but  his  qualities  were  those  of  the  politician  rather  than  of 
the  statesman.  He  was  certainly  the  equal  of  Caleb  Smith 
and  the  superior  of  Cameron.  If  he  had  been  taken  into 
the  Cabinet,  he  would  not  have  been  ejected  without 
assignable  reasons  nine  months  later.  It  was  known 
immediately  after  the  November  election  that  he  ex 
pected  a  Cabinet  position  and  that  Trumbull  favored 
him. 

January  3,  1861,  Judd  wrote  to  Trumbull  that  he  had 
heard  no  word  from  Lincoln,  but  he  had  heard  indirectly 
from  Butler  (state  treasurer)  that  Lincoln  "never  had  a 
truer  friend  than  myself  and  there  was  no  one  in  whom  he 
placed  greater  confidence;  still  circumstances  embarrassed 
him  about  a  Cabinet  appointment."  Judd  understood  this 
to  mean  that  he  would  not  be  appointed  and  he  took 
it  very  much  to  heart.  Doubtless  the  circumstance  that 
most  embarrassed  Lincoln  was  the  same  that  operated  in 
Cameron's  case.  David  Davis  was  insisting  that  his 
pledge  to  the  Indiana  delegates  should  be  made  good. 

January  6,  Lincoln  made  an  early  call  on  Gustave 
Koerner  at  his  hotel  in  Springfield,  before  the  latter  was 
out  of  bed.  Koerner  gives  the  following  account  of  it  in 
his  "Memoirs": 1 

I  unbolted  the  door  and  in  came  Mr.  Lincoln.  "I  want  to 
see  you  and  Judd.  Where  is  his  room?"  I  gave  him  the  num 
ber,  and  presently  he  returned  with  Judd  while  I  was  dressing. 

1  Vol.  ii,  p.  114. 


150  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

"lam  in  a  quandary, "he  said;  "Pennsylvania  is  entitled  to  a 
Cabinet  office.  But  whom  shall  I  appoint?"  "Not  Cameron," 
Judd  and  myself  spoke  up  simultaneously.  "But  whom  else?" 
We  suggested  Reeder  or  Wilmot.  "Oh,"  said  he,  "they  have 
no  show.  There  have  been  delegation  after  delegation  from 
Pennsylvania,  hundreds  of  letters  and  the  cry  is  Cameron, 
Cameron.  Besides,  you  know  I  have  already  fixed  on  Chase, 
Seward,  and  Bates,  my  competitors  at  the  convention.  The 
Pennsylvania  people  say  if  you  leave  out  Cameron  you  dis 
grace  him.  Is  there  not  something  in  that?  "  I  said,  "  Cameron 
cannot  be  trusted.  He  has  the  reputation  of  being  a  tricky  and 
corrupt  politician."  "I  know,  I  know,"  said  Lincoln;  "but  can 
I  get  along  if  that  State  should  oppose  my  administration?" 
He  was  very  much  distressed.  We  told  him  he  would  greatly 
regret  his  appointment.  Our  interview  ended  in  a  protest  on 
the  part  of  Judd  and  myself  against  the  appointment. 

January  7,  Trumbull  wrote  to  Lincoln  advising  him  to 
give  a  Cabinet  appointment  to  some  person  who  could 
stand  in  a  nearer  and  more  confidential  relation  to  him 
than  that  which  grew  out  of  political  affinity,  adding  that 
he  (Lincoln)  knew  whether  Judd  was  the  kind  of  man 
who  would  meet  such  requirements,  and  enclosing  a 
written  recommendation  of  Judd  for  such  a  position, 
signed  by  himself  and  Senators  Grimes,  Chandler,  Wade, 
Wilkinson,  Durkee,  Harlan,  and  Doolittle.  These,  he 
said,  were  the  only  persons  to  whom  the  paper  had  been 
shown  and  the  only  ones  aware  of  its  existence. 

Let  it  be  said  in  passing  that  this  was  bad  advice.  Any 
man  going  into  the  Cabinet  as  a  more  confidential  friend 
of  the  President  than  the  others  would  have  had  all  the 
others  for  his  enemies. 

January  10,  William  Jayne  and  Ebenezer  Peck  (both 
members  of  the  state  legislature)  expressed  the  opinion 
that  Judd  would  be  appointed.  Evidently  the  Trumbull 
letter  and  enclosure  had,  for  the  time  being,  produced  the 
intended  effect.  Jayne  said  that  Davis  and  Yates  were 


CABINET-MAKING  151 

opposed  to  Judd,  but  that  Butler  and  Judge  Logan 
favored  him. 

February  17,  Judd  wrote  from  Buffalo,  New  York, 
where  he.  was  accompanying  Lincoln  on  his  journey  to 
Washington,  saying  that  he  believed  the  Treasury  would 
be  offered  again  to  Chase,  and  if  so  he  must  accept, 
although  it  might  cause  another  "irrepressible  conflict." 
He  said  nothing  about  his  own  prospects.1 

Evidently  Lincoln  had  not  yet  decided  to  take  Cameron 
into  the  Cabinet,  but  after  he  arrived  in  Washington  the 
influence  of  Seward  and  Weed,  which  Dr.  Ray  had  pre 
figured  in  a  letter  to  Trumbull,  prevailed  upon  him  to  do 
so.  This  was  the  opinion  of  Montgomery  Blair,  a  high- 
minded  man  and  an  acute  observer,  expressed  to  Gideon 
Welles  in  these  words: 

Cameron  had  got  into  the  War  Department  by  the  contriv 
ance  and  cunning  of  Seward  who  used  him  and  other  corruption- 
ists  as  he  pleased  with  the  assistance  of  Thurlow  Weed;  that 
Seward  had  tried  to  get  Cameron  into  the  Treasury,  but  was 
unable  to  quite  accomplish  that,  and,  after  a  hard  under 
ground  quarrel  against  Chase,  it  ended  in  the  loss  of  Cameron, 
who  went  over  to  Chase  and  left  Seward.2 

When  Cameron  and  Smith  were  appointed,  the  Berlin 
Mission  was  given  to  Judd,  as  a  salve  to  his  wound.  Gus- 
tave  Koerner  had  been  "slated"  in  the  newspapers  for 
the  Berlin  Mission,  although  he  had  not  applied  for  it.  A 
telegram  had  been  sent  out  from  Springfield  to  the  effect 
that  that  place  had  been  reserved  for  him,  and  he  errone 
ously  supposed  that  it  had  been  done  with  Lincoln's  con 
sent.  It  had  been  published  far  and  wide  hi  America  and 
Europe  without  contradiction.  Koerner 's  friends  on  both 

1  Fogg  of  New  Hampshire  says:  "Mrs.  Lincoln  has  the  credit  of  excluding 
Judd,  of  Chicago,  from  the  Cabinet,"  —  which  is  not  unlikely.  Diary  of  Gideon 
Welles. 

2  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  i,  126. 


152  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

sides  of  the  water  had  written  congratulatory  letters  to 
him,  and  everybody  seemed  to  think  that  the  thing  was 
done,  and  wisely  done.  Some  of  his  clients  had  notified 
him  that,  having  observed  in  the  newspapers  that  he  was 
going  abroad  for  a  few  years,  they  had  engaged  other 
counsel  to  attend  to  their  law  business.  At  this  very  time 
Koerner  was  laboring  for  Judd's  appointment  as  member 
of  the  Cabinet. 

The  same  telegram  that  announced  failure  in  this  at 
tempt  announced  that  Judd  had  been  designated  as  Min 
ister  to  Prussia  and  had  accepted.  Koerner  felt  humili 
ated,  and  he  now  applied  for  some  other  foreign  mission 
which  might  be  awarded  to  the  German  element  of  the 
party  —  preferably  that  of  Switzerland;  but  it  was  now 
too  late.  The  other  places  had  all  been  spoken  for.  At  a 
later  period  he  was  appointed  Minister  to  Spain. 

On  the  9th  of  January,  1861,  Trumbull  was  reflected 
Senator  of  the  United  States  by  the  legislature  of  Illinois, 
by  54  votes  against  46  for  S.  S.  Marshall  (Democrat). 
His  nomination  in  the  Republican  caucus  was  without 
opposition. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  special  session  of  Congress 
called  by  President  Lincoln  for  July  4,  1861,  Trumbull 
was  appointed  by  his  fellow  Senators  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  which  place  he  occupied 
during  the  succeeding  twelve  years. 

The  first  duty  he  was  called  to  perform  was  to  announce 
the  death  of  his  colleague,  Stephen  A.  Douglas.  Douglas 
had  placed  himself  at  Lincoln's  service  in  all  efforts  to 
uphold  the  Constitution  and  enforce  the  laws  against  the 
disunionists.  He  returned  from  Washington  early  in  April 
and  got  in  touch  with  his  constituents,  ready  to  act 
promptly  as  events  might  turn  out.  It  turned  out  that 
the  Confederates  struck  the  first  blow  in  the  Civil  War 


THE  DEATH  OF  DOUGLAS  153 

by  bombarding  Fort  Sumter.  This  was  the  signal  for 
Douglas's  last  and  greatest  political  and  oratorical  effort. 
The  state  legislature,  then  in  session,  invited  him  to 
address  them  on  the  present  crisis,  and  he  responded  on 
the  25th  of  April  in  a  speech  which  made  Illinois  solid  for 
the  Union.  The  writer  was  one  of  the  listeners  to  that 
speech  and  he  cannot  conceive  that  any  orator  of  ancient 
or  modern  times  could  have  surpassed  it.  Douglas  seized 
upon  his  hearers  with  a  kind  of  titanic  grasp  and  held 
them  captive,  enthralled,  spellbound  for  an  immortal 
hour.  He  was  the  only  man  who  could  have  saved  south 
ern  Illinois  from  the  danger  of  an  internecine  war.  The 
southern  counties  followed  him  now  as  faithfully  and  as 
unanimously  as  they  had  followed  him  in  previous  years, 
and  sent  their  sons  into  the  field  to  fight  for  the  Union  as 
numerously  and  bravely  as  those  of  any  other  section  of 
the  state  or  of  the  country.  Douglas  had  only  a  few  more 
days  to  live.  He  was  now  forty-eight  years  of  age,  but  if 
he  had  survived  forty -eight  more  he  could  never  have 
surpassed  that  eloquence  or  exceeded  that  service  to  the 
nation,  for  he  never  could  have  found  another  like  occa 
sion  for  the  use  of  his  astounding  powers. 

He  died  at  Chicago,  June  3,  1861.  Trumbull's  eulogy 
was  solemn,  sincere,  pathetic,  and  impressive  —  a  model 
of  good  taste  in  every  way.  He  retracted  nothing,  but, 
ignoring  past  differences,  he  gave  an  abounding  and 
heartfelt  tribute  of  praise  to  the  dead  statesman  for  his 
matchless  service  to  his  country  in  the  hour  of  her  great 
est  need.  He  concluded  with  these  words: 

On  the  17th  day  of  June  last,  all  that  remained  of  our  de 
parted  brother  was  interred  near  the  city  of  Chicago,  on  the 
shore  of  Lake  Michigan,  whose  pure  waters,  often  lashed  into 
fury  by  contending  elements,  are  a  fitting  memento  of  the 
stormy  and  boisterous  political  tumults  through  which  the  great 


154  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

popular  orator  so  often  passed.  There  the  people,  whose  idol 
he  was,  will  erect  a  monument  to  his  memory;  and  there,  in 
the  soil  of  the  state  which  so  long  without  interruption,  and 
never  to  a  greater  extent  than  at  the  moment  of  his  death, 
gave  him  her  confidence,  let  his  remains  repose  so  long  as  free 
government  shall  last  and  the  Constitution  he  loved  so  well 
endure. 


CHAPTER  IX 

FORT   SUMTER 

MRS.  TRUMBULL  did  not  accompany  her  husband  to 
Washington  at  the  special  session  of  Congress  July  4, 1861. 
A  few  letters  written  to  her  by  him  have  been  preserved. 
One  of  these  revives  the  memory  of  an  affair  which  caused 
intense  indignation  throughout  the  loyal  states. 

On  the  day  when  it  was  decided  in  Cabinet  meeting  to 
send  supplies  to  Major  Anderson  in  Fort  Sumter,  a  news 
paper  correspondent  named  Harvey,  a  native  of  South 
Carolina,  sent  a  telegram  to  Governor  Pickens  at  Charles 
ton  notifying  him  of  the  fact.  Harvey  was  the  only  news 
paper  man  in  Washington  who  had  the  news.  He  did  not 
put  his  own  name  on  the  telegram,  but  signed  it  "A 
Friend."  He  was  afterward  appointed,  at  Secretary 
Seward's  instance,  as  Minister  to  Portugal,  although  he 
was  so  obscure  in  the  political  world  that  the  other  Wash 
ington  correspondents  had  to  unearth  and  identify  him 
to  the  public.  It  was  said  that  he  had  once  been  the  edi 
tor  of  the  Philadelphia  North  American.  After  he  had 
departed  for  his  mission,  there  had  been  a  seizure  of  tele 
grams  by  the  Government  and  this  anonymous  one  to 
Governor  Pickens  was  found.  The  receiving-cIcrK  testi 
fied  that  it  had  been  sent  by  Harvey.  The  Republicans 
in  Congress,  and  especially  the  Senators  who  had  voted 
to  confirm  him,  were  boiling  with  indignation.  A  com 
mittee  of  the  latter  was  appointed  to  call  upon  the  Presi 
dent  and  request  him  to  recall  Harvey.  A  letter  of  Trum- 
bull  to  his  wife  (July  14)  says: 

The  Republicans  in  caucus  appointed  a  committee  to  ex- 


156  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

press  to  him  their  want  of  confidence  in  Harvey,  Minister 
to  Portugal.  Mr.  Lincoln  and  Mr.  Seward  informed  the  com 
mittee  that  they  were  aware  of  the  worst  dispatch  to  Governor 
Pickens  before  he  left  the  country,  but  not  before  he  received 
the  appointment,  and  they  did  not  think  from  their  conversa 
tion  with  Harvey  that  he  had  any  criminal  intent,  and  requested 
the  committee  to  report  the  facts  to  the  caucus,  Mr.  Lincoln 
saying  that  he  would  like  to  know  whether  Senators  were  as 
dissatisfied  when  they  came  to  know  all  the  facts.  The  caucus 
will  meet  to-morrow  and  I  do  not  believe  will  be  satisfied  with 
the  explanation. 

The  inside  history  of  this  telegram  was  made  public 
long  afterward.  Shortly  before  Seward  took  office  as 
Secretary  of  State  there  came  to  Washington  City  three 
commissioners  from  Montgomery,  Alabama,  whose  pur 
pose  was  to  negotiate  terms  of  peaceful  separation  of  the 
Confederate  States  of  America  from  the  United  States, 
or  to  report  to  their  own  Government  the  refusal  of  the 
latter  to  enter  into  such  negotiation.  These  men  were 
Martin  J.  Crawford,  John  Forsyth,  and  A.  B.  Roman. 
They  arrived  in  Washington  on  the  27th  of  February, 
four  days  after  Lincoln's  arrival  and  one  week  before  his 
inauguration.  They  did  not  make  their  errand  known  un 
til  after  the  inauguration.  They  then  communicated  with 
Seward,  by  an  intermediary,  the  nature  of  their  mission, 
and  the  latter  replied  verbally  that  it  was  the  intention  of 
the  new  Administration  to  settle  the  dispute  in  an  amica 
ble  manner.  On  the  15th  of  March,  Seward  assured  the 
Confederate  envoys  that  Sumter  would  be  evacuated 
before  a  letter  from  them  could  reach  Montgomery  — 
that  is,  within  five  days.  The  negotiations  were  pro 
tracted  till  a  decision  had  been  reached,  contrary  to 
Seward's  desires  and  promises,  to  send  a  fleet  with  provi 
sions  to  relieve  the  garrison  at  Fort  Sumter.  Then  Seward 
gave  this  fact  to  Harvey,  knowing  that  he  would  trans- 


FORT  SUMTER  157 

mil  it  to  Governor  Pickens  and  that  the  probable  effect 
would  be  to  defeat  the  scheme  of  relieving  the  garri 
son.  This  he  evidently  desired.  He  had  already  secretly 
detached  the  steamer  Powhatan,  an  indispensable  part  of 
the  Sumter  fleet,  and  sent  it  on  a  useless  expedition  to 
Pensacola  Harbor. 

Gideon  Welles's  account  of  the  Harvey  affair  is  as  fol 
lows: 

Soon  after  President  Lincoln  had  formed  the  resolution  to 
attempt  the  relief  of  Sumter,  and  whilst  it  was  yet  a  secret,  a 
young  man  connected  with  the  telegraph  office  in  Washington, 
with  whom  I  was  acquainted,  a  native  of  the  same  town  with 
myself,  brought  to  me  successively  two  telegrams  conveying  to 
the  rebel  authorities  information  of  the  purposes  and  decisions 
of  the  Administration.  One  of  these  telegrams  was  from  Mr. 
Harvey,  a  newspaper  correspondent,  who  was  soon  after,  and 
with  a  full  knowledge  of  his  having  communicated  to  the  rebels 
the  movements  of  the  Government,  appointed  Minister  to 
Lisbon.  I  had,  on  receiving  these  copies,  handed  them  to  the 
President.  Mr.  Blair,  who  had  also  obtained  a  copy  of  one, 
perhaps  both,  of  these  telegrams  from  another  source,  likewise 
informed  him  of  the  treachery.  The  subject  was  once  or  twice 
alluded  to  in  Cabinet  without  eliciting  any  action,  and  when 
the  nomination  of  Mr.  Harvey  to  the  Portuguese  Mission  was 
announced  —  a  nomination  made  without  the  knowledge  of 
any  member  of  the  Cabinet  but  the  Secretary  of  State  and 
made  at  his  special  request  —  there  was  general  disapproba 
tion  except  by  the  President  (who  avoided  the  expression  of 
any  opinion)  and  by  Mr.  Seward.  The  latter  defended  and 
justified  the  selection,  which  he  admitted  was  recommended 
by  himself,  but  the  President  was  silent  in  regard  to  it.1 

Trumbull  says  in  his  letter  that  Lincoln  and  Seward 
told  the  committee  that  they  did  not  know  that  Harvey 
had  sent  the  dispatch  before  he  received  the  appointment. 
Welles  says  that  both  of  them  knew  it  beforehand,  and 
that  it  was  a  matter  of  Cabinet  discussion  in  which  Lin- 

1  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  i,  32. 


158  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

coin,  however,  took  no  part.  How  are  we  to  explain  this 
contradiction?  It  was  impossible  for  Lincoln  to  utter  an 
untruth,  but  if  we  may  credit  Gideon  Welles,  passim,  it 
was  not  impossible  for  Seward  to  do  so  and  for  Lincoln  to 
remain  silent  while  he  did  so,  as  he  remained  silent  while 
the  Cabinet  were  discussing  the  appointment  of  Harvey. 
If  Seward,  at  the  meeting  of  which  Trumbull  wrote,  in  this 
private  letter  to  his  wife,  took  the  lead  in  the  conversa 
tion,  as  was  his  habit,  and  said  that  there  was  no  knowl 
edge  of  Harvey's  telegram  to  Governor  Pickens  until 
after  Harvey  had  been  appointed  as  minister,  and  Lincoln 
said  nothing  to  the  contrary  >  he  would  naturally  have 
assumed  that  Seward  spoke  for  both. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  Seward  had  previously 
prevailed  upon  the  President  to  agree  to  surrender  Fort 
Sumter,  as  a  means  of  preventing  the  secession  of  Vir 
ginia.  Evidence  of  this  fact  is  supplied  by  the  following 
entry  in  the  diary  of  John  Hay,  under  date  October  22, 
1861: 

At  Seward's  to-night  the  President  talked  about  Secession, 
Compromise,  and  other  such.  He  spoke  of  a  Committee  of 
Southern  pseudo-unionists  coming  to  him  before  inauguration 
for  guarantees,  etc.  He  promised  to  evacuate  Sumter  if  they 
would  break  up  their  Convention  without  any  row,  or  nonsense. 
They  demurred.  Subsequently  he  renewed  proposition  to 
Summers,  but  without  any  result.  The  President  was  most 
anxious  to  prevent  bloodshed.1 

Hay  here  speaks  of  two  offers  made  by  Lincoln  to  evac 
uate  Sumter,  one  before  his  inauguration  and  one  after. 
Both  were  made  on  condition  that  a  certain  convention 
should  be  adjourned.  This  was  the  convention  of  Vir 
ginia,  which  had  been  called  to  consider  the  question  of 
secession.  It  had  met  in  Richmond  on  the  13th  of  Febru- 

1  Letters  and  Diaries  of  John  Hay,  I,  47. 


FORT  SUMTER  159 

ary,  while  Lincoln  was  en  route  for  Washington.  As  Lin 
coln  arrived  in  Washington  on  the  23d  of  February,  the 
first  offer  must  have  been  made  in  the  interval  between 
that  day  and  the  4th  of  March. 

The  History  of  Nicolay  and  Hay  does  not  mention  the 
first  offer.  It  speaks  of  the  second  one  as  a  matter  about 
which  the  facts  are  in  dispute,  the  disputants  being  John 
Minor  Botts  and  J.  B.  Baldwin.  Botts  was  an  ex-member 
of  Congress  from  Virginia  and  a  strong  Union  man.  Bald 
win  was  a  member  of  the  Virginia  Convention  and  a  Union 
man.  He  had  come  to  Washington  in  response  to  an  invi 
tation  which  Lincoln  had  sent,  on  or  about  the  20th  of 
March,  to  George  W.  Summers,  who  was  likewise  a  mem 
ber  of  the  convention.  Summers  was  not  able  to  come  at 
the  time  when  the  invitation  reached  him,  and  he  deputed 
Baldwin  to  go  in  his  place. 

After  the  war  ended,  Botts  wrote  a  book  entitled  "The 
Great  Rebellion,"  in  which  he  gave  the  following  account 
of  an  interview  he  had  had  with  President  Lincoln  on 
Sunday,  April  7,  1861  (two  days  after  Baldwin  had  had 
his  interview) : 

About  this  time  Mr.  Lincoln  sent  a  messenger  to  Richmond, 
inviting  a  distinguished  member  of  the  Union  party  to  come 
immediately  to  Washington,  and  if  he  could  not  come  himself, 
to  send  some  other  prominent  Union  man,  as  he  wanted  to  see 
him  on  business  of  the  first  importance.  The  gentleman  thus 
addressed,  Mr.  Summers,  did  not  go,  but  sent  another,  Mr.  J. 
B.  Baldwin,  who  had  distinguished  himself  by  his  zeal  in  the 
Union  cause  during  the  session  of  the  convention ;  but  this  gen 
tleman  was  slow  in  getting  to  Washington,  and  did  not  reach 
there  for  something  like  a  week  after  the  time  he  was  expected. 
He  reached  Washington  on  Friday,  the  5th  of  April,  and,  on 
calling  on  Mr.  Lincoln,  the  following  conversation  in  substance 
took  place,  as  I  learned  from  Mr.  Lincoln  himself.  After  ex 
pressing  some  regret  that  he  had  not  come  sooner,  Mr.  Lin 
coln  said,  "  My  object  in  desiring  the  presence  of  Mr.  Summers, 


160  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

or  some  other  influential  and  leading  member  of  the  Union 
party  in  your  convention,  was  to  submit  a  proposition  by  which 
I  think  the  peace  of  the  country  can  be  preserved;  but  I  fear 
you  are  almost  too  late.  However,  I  will  make  it  yet. 

"This  afternoon,"  he  said,  "a  fleet  is  to  sail  from  the  harbor 
of  New  York  for  Charleston;  your  convention  has  been  in  ses 
sion  for  nearly  two  months,  and  you  have  done  nothing  but 
hold  and  shake  the  rod  over  my  head.  You  have  just  taken  a 
vote,  by  which  it  appears  you  have  a  majority  of  two  to  one 
against  secession.  Now,  so  great  is  my  desire  to  preserve  the 
peace  of  the  country,  and  to  save  the  border  states  to  the 
Union,  that  if  you  gentlemen  of  the  Union  party  will  adjourn 
without  passing  an  ordinance  of  secession,  I  will  telegraph  at 
once  to  New  York,  arrest  the  sailing  of  the  fleet,  and  take  the 
responsibility  of  EVACUATING  FORT  SUMTER!" 

The  proposition  was  declined.  On  the  following  Sunday  night 
I  was  with  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  the  greater  part  of  the  time  alone, 
when  Mr.  Lincoln  related  the  above  facts  to  me.  I  inquired, 
"  Well,  Mr.  Lincoln,  what  reply  did  Mr.  Baldwin  make?  "  "  Oh," 
said  he,  throwing  up  his  hands,  "he  would  n't  listen  to  it  at  all; 
scarcely  treated  me  with  civility;  asked  me  what  I  meant  by  an 
adjournment;  was  it  an  adjournment  sine  die  ?"  "Of  course," 
said  Mr.  Lincoln,  "I  don't  want  you  to  adjourn,  and,  after  I 
have  evacuated  the  fort,  meet  again  to  adopt  an  ordinance  of 
secession."  I  then  said,  "Mr.  Lincoln,  will  you  authorize  me 
to  make  that  proposition?  For  I  will  start  to-morrow  morning, 
and  have  a  meeting  of  the  Union  men  to-morrow  night,  who, 
I  have  no  doubt,  will  gladly  accept  it."  To  which  he  replied, 
"It's  too  late,  now;  the  fleet  sailed  on  Friday  evening." 

In  1866,  the  Reconstruction  Committee  of  Congress 
got  an  inkling  of  this  interview  between  Lincoln  and  Bald 
win, called  Baldwin  as  a  witness,  and  questioned  him  about 
it.  He  testified  that  he  had  an  interview  with  the  Presi 
dent  at  the  date  mentioned,  but  denied  that  Lincoln  had 
offered  to  evacuate  Fort  Sumter  if  the  Virginia  Conven 
tion  would  adjourn  sine  die.  Thereupon  Botts  collected 
and  published  a  mass  of  collateral  evidence  to  show  that 
Baldwin  had  testified  falsely. 


FORT  SUMTER  161 

Bolts  says  in  his  book  that  he  had  confirmatory  letters 
from  Governor  Peirpoint,  General  Millson,  of  Virginia, 
Dr.  Stone,  of  Washington,  Hon.  Garrett  Davis  (Sena 
tor  from  Kentucky),  Robert  A.  Gray,  of  Rockingham 
(brother-in-law  to  Baldwin),  Campbell  Tarr,  of  Wheeling, 
and  three  others,  to  whom  Lincoln  made  the  statement 
regarding. his  interview  with  Baldwin,  in  almost  the  same 
language  in  which  he  made  it  to  Botts  himself.  Botts 
quotes  from  two  letters  written  to  him  by  John  F.  Lewis 
in  1866,  in  which  the  latter  says  that  Baldwin  acknowl 
edged  to  him  (Lewis)  that  Lincoln  did  offer  to  evacuate 
Fort  Sumter  on  the  condition  named.  There  are  persons 
now  living  to  whom  Lewis  made  the  same  statement, 
verbally. 

There  is  another  piece  of  evidence,  supplied  by  Rev.  R. 
L.  Dabney  in  the  Southern  Historical  Society  Papers,  in 
a  communication  entitled  "Colonel  Baldwin's  Interview 
with  Mr.  Lincoln."  This  purports  to  give  the  writer's 
recollections  of  an  interview  with  Baldwin  in  March, 
1865,  at  Petersburg,  while  the  siege  of  that  place  was 
going  on.  Baldwin  said  that  Secretary  Seward  sent  Allan 
B.  Magruder  as  a  messenger  to  Mr.  Janney,  president  of 
the  Virginia  Convention,  urging  that  one  of  the  Union 
members  come  to  Washington  to  confer  with  Lincoln. 
Baldwin  was  called  out  of  the  convention  by  Summers  on 
the  3d  of  April  to  see  Magruder,  and  the  latter  said  that 
Seward  had  authorized  him  to  say  that  Fort  Sumter  would 
be  evacuated  on  Friday  of  the  ensuing  week.  The  gentle 
men  consulted  urged  Baldwin  to  go  to  Washington,  and  he 
consented  and  did  go  promptly.  Seward  accompanied  him 
to  the  White  House  and  Lincoln  took  him  upstairs  into 
his  bedroom  and  locked  the  door.  Lincoln  "took  a  seat 
on  the  edge  of  the  bed,  spitting  from  time  to  time  on  the 
carpet."  The  two  entered  into  a  long  dispute  about  the 


162  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

right  of  secession.  Baldwin  insisted  that  coercion  would 
lead  to  war,  in  which  case  Virginia  would  join  in  behalf 
of  the  seceded  states. 

Lincoln's  native  good  sense  [the  narrative  proceeds],  with 
Baldwin's  evident  sincerity,  seemed  now  to  open  his  eyes  to  the 
truth.  He  slid  off  the  edge  of  the  bed  and  began  to  stalk  in  his 
awkward  manner  across  the  chamber  in  great  excitement  and 
perplexity.  He  clutched  his  shaggy  hair  as  though  he  would 
jerk  out  handfuls  by  the  roots.  He  frowned  and  contorted  his 
features,  exclaiming,  "I  ought  to  have  known  this  sooner;  you 
are  too  late,  sir,  too  late.  Why  did  you  not  come  here  four  days 
ago  and  tell  me  all  this?"  Colonel  Baldwin  replied:  "Why, 
Mr.  President,  you  did  not  ask  our  advice." 

The  foregoing  narrative  involves  the  supposition  that 
Lincoln,  in  the  midst  of  preparations  for  sending  a  fleet 
to  Fort  Sumter,  dispatched  a  messenger  to  Richmond  to 
bring  a  man  to  Washington  to  discuss  with  him  the  ab 
stract  question  of  the  right  of  a  state  to  secede,  and  that, 
having  procured  the  presence  of  such  a  person,  he  took 
him  into  a  bedroom,  locked  the  door,  and  had  the  debate 
with  him,  taking  care  that  nobody  else  should  hear  a  syl 
lable  of  it.  Not  a  word  about  Fort  Sumter,  although 
Magruder,  the  messenger,  had  said  that  it  would  be  evacu 
ated  on  the  following  Friday !  Yet  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dabney 
did  not  see  the  incongruity  of  the  situation. 

Nicolay  and  Hay  say  that  Lincoln  did  not  make  any 
offer  to  Baldwin  to  evacuate  Sumter,  but  did  tell  him 
what  he  had  intended  to  say  to  Summers,  if  the  latter  had 
come  to  Washington  at  the  right  time.1 

A  marvelous  incident  is  related  in  Welles's  Diary 
immediately  after  his  narrative  of  the  Harvey  affair.  It 
describes  the  activity  and  earnestness  of  Stephen  A. 

1  Nicolay  and  Hay,  in,  428.   Probably  the  entry  in  Hay's  Diary  had  been 
forgotten  when  the  History  was  written,  twenty-five  years  later. 


FORT  SUMTER  163 

Douglas  in  combating  the  Rebels,  in  contrast  to  the  futile 
diplomacy  of  Seward: 

Two  days  preceding  the  attack  on  Sumter,  I  met  Senator 
Douglas  in  front  of  the  Treasury  Building.  He  was  in  a  car 
riage  with  Mrs.  Douglas,  driving  rapidly  up  the  street.  When 
he  saw  me  he  checked  his  driver,  jumped  from  the  carriage,  and 
came  to  me  on  the  sidewalk,  and  in  a  very  earnest  and  emphatic 
manner  said  the  rebels  were  determined  on  war  and  were  about 
to  make  an  assault  on  Sumter.  He  thought  immediate  and 
decisive  measures  should  be  taken;  considered  it  a  mistake 
that  there  had  not  already  been  more  energetic  action;  said 
the  dilatory  proceedings  of  the  Government  would  bring  on  a 
terrible  civil  war;  that  the  whole  South  was  united  and  in 
earnest.  Although  he  had  differed  with  the  Administration  on 
important  questions  and  would  never  be  in  accord  with  some 
of  its  members  on  measures  and  principles  that  were  funda 
mental,  yet  he  had  no  fellowship  with  traitors  or  disunionists. 
He  was  for  the  Union  and  would  stand  by  the  Administration 
and  all  others  in  its  defense,  regardless  of  party.  [Welles  pro 
posed  that  they  should  step  into  the  State  Department  and 
consult  with  Seward.]  The  look  of  mingled  astonishment  and 
incredulity  which  came  over  him  I  can  never  forget.  "Then 
you,"  he  said,  "have  faith  in  Seward!  Have  you  made  yourself 
acquainted  with  what  has  been  going  on  here  all  winter? 
Seward  has  had  an  understanding  with  these  men.  If  he  has 
influence  with  them,  why  don't  he  use  it?" 

Douglas  considered  it  a  waste  of  time  and  effort  to  talk 
to  Seward,  considered  him  a  dead  weight  and  drag  on  the 
Administration;  said  that  Lincoln  was  honest  and  meant 
to  do  right,  but  was  benumbed  by  Seward;  but  finally 
yielded  to  Welles's  desire  that  they  should  go  into  Se ward's 
office,  in  front  of  which  they  were  standing.  They  went  in 
and  Douglas  told  Seward  what  he  had  told  Welles,  that 
the  rebels  were  determined  on  war  and  were  about  to  make 
an  assault  on  Sumter,  and  that  the  Administration  ought 
not  to  delay  another  minute,  but  should  make  instant 
preparations  for  war.  All  the  reply  they  got  from  Seward 


164  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

was  that  there  were  many  rash  and  reckless  men  at 
Charleston  and  that  if  they  were  determined  to  assault 
Sumter  he  did  not  know  how  they  were  to  be  prevented 
from  doing  so. 

Seward's  aims  were  patriotic  but  futile.  He  wished  to 
save  the  Union  without  bloodshed,  but  the  steps  which  he 
took  were  almost  suicidal.  What  the  country  then  needed 
was  a  jettison  of  compromises,  and  a  resolution  of  doubts. 
Providence  supplied  these.  The  bombardment  of  Sumter 
accomplished  the  object  as  nothing  else  could  have  done. 
Nothing  could  have  been  contrived  so  sure  to  awaken  the 
volcanic  forces  that  ended  in  the  destruction  of  slavery  as 
the  spectacle  in  Charleston  Harbor. 


CHAPTER  X 

BULL  RUN  —  THE   CONFISCATION  ACT 

IN  company  with  other  Senators,  Trumbull  went  to  the 
battle  of  Bull  Run,  July  21, 1861.  His  experience  there  he 
communicated  to  his  wife,  first  by  a  brief  telegram,  and 
afterwards  by  letter.  The  telegram  was  suppressed  by 
the  authorities  in  charge  of  the  telegraph  office,  who  sub 
stituted  one  of  their  own  in  place  of  it  and  appended  his 
name  to  it.  The  letter  follows : 

WASHINGTON,  July  22nd,  1861. 

We  started  over  into  Virginia  about  9  o'clock  A.M.,  and  drove 
to  Centreville,  which  is  a  high  commanding  position  and  a 
village  of  perhaps  fifty  houses.  Bull  Run,  where  the  battle 
occurred,  is  South  about  3  miles  and  the  creek  on  the  main 
road,  looking  West,  is  about  4|  miles  distant.  The  country  is 
timbered  for  perhaps  a  mile  West  of  the  creek,  between  which 
and  Centreville  there  are  a  good  many  cleared  fields.  At  Cen 
treville,  Grimes  and  I  got  saddles  and  rode  horseback  down  the 
main  road  towards  the  creek  about  three  miles  toward  a  hos 
pital  where  were  some  few  wounded  soldiers  and  a  few  prisoners 
who  had  been  sent  back.  This  was  about  half-past  three  o'clock 
P.M.  Here  we  met  with  Col.  Vandever  of  Iowa,  who  gave  us 
a  very  clear  account  of  the  battle.  He  had  been  with  Gen. 
McDowell  and  Gen.  Hunter,  who  with  the  strongest  part  of  the 
army,  had  gone  early  in  the  morning  a  few  miles  north  of  the 
main  road  and  crossed  the  creek  to  take  the  enemy  in  the  flank. 
His  division  had  very  serious  fighting,  but  had  driven  the 
enemy  back  and  taken  three  of  his  batteries.  At  the  hospital 
we  were  about  one  and  a  half  miles  from  Generals  Tyler  and 
Schenck,  Col.  Sherman,  etc.,  who  were  down  the  road  in  the 
woods  and  out  of  sight,  with  several  regiments  and  a  number  of 
guns.  Their  troops,  Vandever  told  us,  were  a  good  deal  demor 
alized,  and  he  feared  an  attack  from  the  South  towards  Bull 


166  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Run  where  the  battle  of  a  few  days  ago  was  fought.  About  this 
time  a  battery,  apparently  hot  more  than  a  mile  and  a  half  dis 
tant  and  from  the  South,  fired  on  the  battery  where  Sherman 
and  Schenck  were.  The  firing  was  not  rapid.  On  the  hill  at 
Centreville  we  could  see  quite  beyond  the  timber  of  the  creek 
off  towards  Manassas  and  see  the  smoke  and  hear  the  report  of 
the  artillery,  but  not  very  rapid  as  I  thought.  This  we  observed 
before  leaving  Centreville,  and  were  told  it  was  our  main  army 
driving  the  enemy  back,  but  slowly  and  with  great  difficulty. 
While  at  the  hospital  McDougall  of  California  came  up  from 
the  neighborhood  of  Gen.  Schenck  and  said  he  was  going  back 
towards  Centreville  to  a  convenient  place  where  he  could  get 
water  and  take  lunch.  As  Grimes  and  myself  had  got  separated 
from  Messrs.  Wade  and  Chandler  and  Brown,  who  had  with 
them  our  supplies,  we  concluded  to  go  back  with  McD.  and  par 
take  with  him.  We  returned  on  the  road  towards  Centreville 
and  turned  up  towards  a  house  fifty  or  a  hundred  yards  from 
the  road,  where  we  quietly  took  our  lunch,  the  firing  continuing 
about  as  before.  Just  as  we  were  putting  away  the  things  we 
heard  a  great  noise,  and  looking  up  towards  the  road  saw  it 
filled  with  wagons,  horsemen  and  footmen  in  full  run  towards 
Centreville.  We  immediately  mounted  our  horses  and  galloped 
to  the  road,  by  which  time  it  was  crowded,  hundreds  being  in 
advance  on  the  way  to  Centreville  and  two  guns  of  the  Sherman 
battery  having  already  passed  in  full  retreat.  We  kept  on  with 
the  crowd,  not  knowing  what  else  to  do.  On  the  way  to  Centre 
ville  many  soldiers  threw  away  their  guns,  knapsacks,  etc.  Gov. 
Grimes  and  I  each  picked  up  a  gun.  I  soon  came  up  to  Senator 
Lane  of  Indiana,  and  the  gun  being  heavy  to  carry  and  he  bet 
ter  able  to  manage  it,  I  gave  it  to  him.  Efforts  were  made  to 
rally  the  men  by  civilians  and  others  on  their  way  to  Centre 
ville,  but  all  to  no  purpose.  Literally,  three  could  have  chased 
ten  thousand.  All  this  stampede  was  occasioned,  as  I  under 
stand,  by  a  charge  of  not  exceeding  two  hundred  cavalry  upon 
Schenck's  column  down  in  the  woods,  which,  instead  of  re 
pulsing  as  they  could  easily  have  done  (having  before  become 
disordered  and  having  lost  some  of  their  officers),  broke  and 
ran,  communicating  the  panic  to  everybody  they  met.  The 
rebel  cavalry,  or  about  one  hundred  of  them,  charged  up  past 
the  hospital  where  we  had  been  and  took  there  some  prisoners, 


BULL  RUN  — THE  CONFISCATION  ACT      167 

as  I  am  told,  and  released  those  we  had.  It  was  the  most  shame 
ful  rout  you  can  conceive  of.  I  suppose  two  thousand  soldiers 
came  rushing  into  Centreville  in  this  disorganized  condition. 
The  cavalry  which  made  the  charge  I  did  not  see,  but  suppose 
they  disappeared  in  double-quick  time,  not  dreaming  that  they 
had  put  a  whole  division  to  flight.  Several  guns  were  left  down 
in  the  woods,  though  I  believe  two  were  brought  off.  What 
became  of  Schenck  I  do  not  know.  Tyler,  I  understand,  was  at 
Centreville  when  I  got  back  there.  Whether  other  portions  of 
our  army  were  shamefully  routed  just  at  the  close  of  the  day, 
after  we  had  really  won  the  battle,  it  seems  impossible  for  me 
to  learn,  though  I  was  told  that  McDowell  was  at  Centreville 
when  we  were  there  and  that  his  column  had  also  been  driven 
back.  If  this  be  so  it  is  a  terrible  defeat.  At  Centreville  there 
was  a  reserve  of  8000  or  10,000  men  under  Col.  Miles  who  had 
not  been  in  the  action  and  they  were  formed  in  line  of  battle 
when  we  left  there,  but  the  enemy  did  not,  I  presume,  ad 
vance  to  that  point  last  night,  as  we  heard  no  firing.  We  fed  our 
horses  at  Centreville  and  left  there  at  six  o'clock  last  evening. 
Came  on  to  Fairfax  Court  House,  where  we  got  supper,  and 
leaving  there  at  ten  o'clock  reached  home  at  half-past  two  this 
morning,  having  had  a  sad  day  and  witnessed  scenes  I  hope 
never  to  see  again.  Not  very  many  baggage  wagons,  perhaps 
not  more  than  fifty,  were  advanced  beyond  Centreville.  From 
them  the  horses  were  mostly  unhitched  and  the  wagons  left 
standing  in  the  road  when  the  stampede  took  place.  This  side 
of  Centreville  there  were  a  great  many  wagons,  and  the  alarm 
if  possible  was  greater  than  on  the  other.  Thousands  of  shovels 
were  thrown  out  upon  the  road,  also  axes,  boxes  of  provisions, 
etc.  In  some  instances  wagons  were  upset  to  get  them  out  of 
the  road,  and  the  road  was  full  of  four-horse  wagons  retreating 
as  fast  as  possible,  and  also  of  flying  soldiers  who  could  not  be 
made  to  stop  at  Centreville.  The  officers  stopped  the  wagons 
and  a  good  many  of  the  retreating  soldiers  by  putting  a  file  of 
men  across  the  road  and  not  allowing  them  to  pass.  In  this 
way  all  the  teams  were  stopped,  but  a  good  many  stragglers 
climbed  the  fences  and  got  by.  I  fear  that  a  great,  and,  of 
course,  a  terrible  slaughter  has  overtaken  the  Union  forces  — 
God's  ways  are  inscrutable.  I  am  dreadfully  disappointed  and 
mortified. 


168  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Copy  of  telegram  sent  to  Mrs.  Lyman  Trumbull,  July 
22,  1861: 

The  battle  resulted  unfavorably  to  our  cause. 

LYMAN  T. 

When  received  by  Mrs.  Trumbull,  it  read: 

I  came  from  near  the  battlefield  last  night.  It  was  a  desper 
ately  bloody  fight. 

The  only  bill  of  importance  passed  at  the  July  session  of 
Congress  at  Trumbull's  instance  was  one  to  declare  free 
all  slaves  who  might  be  employed  by  their  owners,  or 
with  their  owners'  consent,  on  any  military  or  naval  work 
against  the  Government,  and  who  might  fall  into  our 
hands.  It  was  called  a  Confiscation  Act,  but  it  did  not 
confiscate  any  other  than  slave  property.  It  was  an  enter 
ing  wedge,  however,  for  complete  emancipation  which 
came  by  successive  steps  later. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  regular  session  (December, 
1861),  I  was  sent  to  Washington  City  as  correspondent  of 
the  Chicago  Tribune,  and  was,  for  the  first  time,  brought 
into  close  relations  with  Trumbull.  He  had  rented  a 
house  on  G  Street,  near  the  Post-Office  Department. 

Very  few  Senators  at  that  period  kept  house  in  Wash 
ington.  At  Mrs.  Shipman's  boarding-house  on  Seventh 
Street,  lived  Senators  Fessenden,  Grimes,  Foot,  and  Rep 
resentatives  Morrill,  of  Vermont,  and  Washburne,  of 
Illinois;  and  there  I  also  found  quarters.  As  this  was 
only  a  block  distant  from  the  Trumbulls',  and  as  I  had 
received  a  cordial  welcome  from  them,  I  was  soon  on 
terms  of  intimacy  with  the  family.  Mr.  Trumbull  was 
then  forty-eight-years  of  age,  five  feet  ten  and  one  half 
inches  in  height,  straight  as  an  arrow,  weighing  one  hun 
dred  and  sixty-seven  pounds,  of  faultless  physique,  in 
perfect  health,  and  in  manners  a  cultivated  gentleman. 


BULL  RUN  — THE  CONFISCATION  ACT      169 

Mrs.  Trumbull  was  thirty-seven  years  old,  of  winning 
features,  gracious  manners,  and  noble  presence.  Five 
children  had  been  born  to  them,  all  sons.  Walter,  fifteen 
years  of  age,  the  eldest  then  living,  had  recently  returned 
from  an  ocean  voyage  on  the  warship  Vandalia,  under 
Commander  S.  Phillips  Lee.  A  more  attractive  family 
group,  or  one  more  charming  in  a  social  way  or  more 
kindly  affectioned  one  to  another,  I  have  never  known. 
Civilization  could  show  no  finer  type. 

The  Thirty -seventh  Congress  met  in  a  state  of  great 
depression.  Disaster  had  befallen  the  armies  of  the 
Union,  but  the  defeat  at  Bull  Run  was  not  so  dishearten 
ing  as  the  subsequent  inaction  both  east  and  west.  Mc- 
Clellan  on  the  Potomac  had  done  nothing  but  organize 
and  parade.  Fremont  on  the  Mississippi  had  done  worse 
than  nothing.  He  had  surrounded  himself  with  a  gang 
of  thieves  whose  plundering  threatened  to  bankrupt  the 
treasury,  and  when  he  saw  exposure  threatening  he  issued 
a  military  order  emancipating  slaves,  the  revocation  of 
which  by  the  President  very  nearly  upset  the  Govern 
ment.  The  popular  demand  for  a  blow  at  slavery  as  the 
cause  of  the  rebellion  had  increased  in  proportion  as  the 
military  operations  had  been  disappointing.  Lincoln  be 
lieved  that  the  time  had  not  yet  come  for  using  that 
weapon.  He  revoked  Fremont's  order.  He  thereby  saved 
Kentucky  to  the  Union,  and  he  still  held  emancipation  in 
reserve  for  a  later  day;  but  he  incurred  the  risk  of  alienat 
ing  the  radical  element  of  the  Republican  party  —  an 
honest,  fiery,  valiant,  indispensable  wing  of  the  forces 
supporting  the  Union.  The  explosion  which  took  place 
in  this  division  of  the  party  was  almost  but  not  quite 
fatal.  Many  letters  received  by  Trumbull  at  this  junc 
ture  were  angry  and  some  mournful  in  the  extreme.  The 
following  written  by  Mr.  M.  Carey  Lea,  of  Philadelphia, 


170  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

touches  upon  a  danger  threatening  the  national  finances, 
in  consequence  of  this  episode: 

PHILADELPHIA,  Nov.  1,  1861. 

DEAR  SIR:  The  ability  of  our  Government  to  carry  on  this  war 
depends  upon  its  being  able  to  continue  to  obtain  the  enormous 
amounts  of  money  requisite.  Of  late,  within  a  week  or  so,  an 
alarming  falling  off  in  the  bond  subscriptions  has  taken  place. 
Now  it  is  upon  these  private  subscriptions  that  the  ability  of 
the  banks  to  continue  to  lend  the  Government  money  depends, 
and  unless  a  change  takes  place  they  will  be  unable  to  take  the 
fifty  millions  remaining  of  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions 
loan.  A  member  of  the  committee  informed  me  lately  that 
the  banks  had  positively  declined  to  pledge  themselves  before 
the  1st  of  December,  notwithstanding  Mr.  Chase's  desire  that 
they  should  do  so. 

This  sudden  diminution  of  subscriptions  arises  from  the 
course  taken  by  some  of  our  friends  in  the  West.  Even  suppose 
that  Gen.  Fremont  is  treated  unfairly  by  the  Government  (and 
I  think  he  is  fairly  termed  incapable)  —  but  suppose  there 
should  be  injustice  done  him  —  you  might  disapprove  it,  but 
the  moment  there  is  any  serious  idea  of  resisting  the  act  of  the 
President,  this  war  is  ended.  For  the  bare  suggestion  of  such  a 
thing  has  almost  stopped  subscriptions,  and  the  serious  discus 
sion,  much  more  the  attempt,  would  instantly  put  an  end  to 
them. 

I  beg  to  remind  you  that  in  what  I  say  I  have  no  prejudice 
against  Fremont.  I  voted  for  him  and  have  always  concurred 
in  opinions  with  the  Republican  party,  but  we  have  now 
reached  a  point  where,  if  we  look  to  men  and  not  to  principles, 
we  are  shipwrecked.  Fremont  is  not  more  anti-slavery  in  his 
views  than  Lincoln  and  Seward,  and  if  he  were  in  their  place 
would  adopt  the  same  cautious  policy.  The  state  of  affairs 
must  be  my  excuse  for  intruding  upon  you  these  views.  We  all 
have  all  at  stake  and  such  a  crisis  leads  those  to  speak  who  are 
ordinarily  silent.  I  remain,  my  dear  Sir, 
Yours  respectfully, 

M.  CAREY  LEA. 

To  this  weighty  communication  Trumbull  made  the 
following  reply: 


BULL  RUN  — THE  CONFISCATION  ACT      171 

WASHINGTON,  Nov.  5th,  1861. 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  Thanks  for  your  kind  letter  just  received.  I  was 
not  aware  of  a  disposition  in  the  West  to  resist  the  act  of  the 
President  in  regard  to  Gen.  Fremont;  though  I  was  aware  that 
there  was  very  great  dissatisfaction  in  that  part  of  the  country 
at  the  want  of  enterprise  and  energy  on  that  part  of  our  Grand 
Army  of  the  Potomac.  We  are  fighting  to  sustain  constitutional 
government  and  regulated  liberty,  and,  of  course,  to  set  up  any 
military  leader  in  opposition  to  the  constituted  authorities 
would  be  utterly  destructive  of  the  very  purpose  for  which  the 
people  of  the  loyal  states  are  now  so  liberally  contributing  their 
blood  and  treasure,  and  could  only  be  justified  in  case  those 
charged  with  the  administration  of  affairs  were  betraying  their 
trusts  or  had  shown  themselves  utterly  incompetent  and  unable 
to  maintain  the  Government.  In  my  opinion  this  rebellion 
ought  to  and  might  have  been  crushed  before  this. 

I  have  entire  confidence  in  the  integrity  and  patriotism  of 
the  President.  He  means  well  and  in  ordinary  times  would  have 
made  one  of  the  best  of  Presidents,  but  he  lacks  confidence  in 
himself  and  the  will  necessary  in  this  great  emergency,  and  he  is 
most  miserably  surrounded.  Now  that  Gen.  Scott  has  retired, 
I  hope  for  more  activity  and  should  confidently  expect  it  did  I 
not  know  that  there  is  still  remaining  an  influence  almost  if  not 
quite  controlling,  which  I  fear  is  looking  more  to  some  grand 
diplomatic  move  for  the  settlement  of  our  troubles  than  to  the 
strengthening  of  our  arms.  It  is  only  by  making  this  war  ter 
rible  to  traitors  that  our  difficulties  can  be  permanently  settled. 
War  means  desolation,  and  they  who  have  brought  it  on  must 
be  made  to  feel  all  its  horrors,  and  our  armies  must  go  forth 
using  all  the  means  which  God  and  nature  have  put  in  their 
hands  to  put  down  this  wicked  rebellion.  This  in  the  end  will 
be  done,  and  if  our  armies  are  vigorously  and  actively  led  will 
soon  give  us  peace.  I  trust  that  Gen.  McClellan  will  now  drive 
the  enemy  from  the  vicinity  of  the  Capital  —  that  he  has  the 
means  to  do  it,  I  have  no  doubt.  If  the  case  were  reversed  and 
the  South  had  our  means  and  our  arms  and  men,  and  we  theirs, 
they  would  before  this  have  driven  us  to  the  St.  Lawrence.  If 
our  army  should  go  into  winter  quarters  with  the  Capital  be 
sieged,  I  very  much  fear  the  result  would  be  a  recognition  of  the 
Confederates  by  foreign  Governments,  the  demoralization  of 


172  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

our  own  people,  and  of  course  an  inability  to  raise  either  men 
or  money  another  season.  Such  must  not  be.  Action,  action 
is  what  we  want  and  must  have.  God  grant  that  McClellan 
may  prove  equal  to  the  emergency. 

Yours  very  truly, 

LYMAN  TRUMBULL. 

The  "influence  almost  if  not  quite  controlling"  meant 
Seward.  Secretary  Cameron  went  to  St.  Louis  to  investi 
gate  Fremont  and  found  him  guilty.  Two  months  later  he 
followed  Fremont's  example.1  In  his  report  as  Secretary 
of  War  he  inserted  an  argument  in  favor  of  the  emancipa 
tion  and  arming  of  slaves.  This  he  sent  to  the  newspapers 
in  advance  of  its  delivery  to  the  President  and  without  his 
knowledge.  The  latter  discovered  it  in  time  to  expunge 
the  objectionable  part  and  to  prevent  its  delivery  to  Con 
gress,  but  not  soon  enough  to  recall  it  from  the  press.  The 
expunged  part  was  published  by  some  of  the  newspapers 
that  had  received  it  and  was  reproduced  in  the  Congres 
sional  Globe  (December  12),  by  Representative  Eliot,  of 
Massachusetts . 

The  next  man  to  take  upon  himself  the  responsibility  of 
declaring  the  nation's  policy  on  this  momentous  question 
was  General  David  Hunter,  who  then  held  sway  over  a 
small  strip  of  ground  on  the  coast  of  South  Carolina.  In 
the  month  of  May,  1862,  he  issued  an  order  granting 
freedom  to  all  slaves  in  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and 
Florida.  Hunter's  order  was  promptly  revoked  by  the 
President. 

1  Gideon  Welles  quotes  Montgomery  Blair  as  saying  in  conversation  (Sep 
tember  12,  1862):  "Bedeviled  with  the  belief  that  he  might  be  a  candidate  for 
the  Presidency,  Cameron  was  beguiled  and  led  to  mount  the  nigger  hobby, 
alarmed  the  President  with  his  notions,  and  at  the  right  moment  (B.  says)  he 
plainly  and  promptly  told  the  President  he  ought  to  get  rid  of  C.  at  once,  that 
he  was  not  fit  to  remain  in  the  Cabinet,  and  was  incompetent  to  manage  the 
War  Department,  which  he  had  undertaken  to  run  by  the  aid  of  Tom  A. 
Scott,  a  corrupt  lobby  jobber  from  Philadelphia."  (Diary,  i,  127.) 


BULL  RUN  — THE  CONFISCATION  ACT      173 

Trumbull  had  been  the  pioneer,  at  the  July  session,  in 
the  way  of  legislation  for  freeing  the  slaves.  On  the  first 
day  of  tjie  regular  session  he  took  another  step  forward, 
by  introducing  a  bill  for  the  confiscation  of  the  property 
of  the  rebels  and  for  giving  freedom  to  persons  held  as 
slaves  by  them.  This  came  to  be  known  as  the  Confisca 
tion  Act. 

On  the  5th  of  December,  1861,  he  reported  the  bill 
from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  and  made  a  brief 
speech  on  it.  It  provided  that  all  the  property,  real  and 
personal,  situated  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States, 
belonging  to  persons  who  should  bear  arms  against  the 
Government,  or  give  aid  and  comfort  to  those  in  rebellion, 
which  persons  should  not  be  reachable  by  the  ordinary 
process  of  law,  should  be  forfeited  and  confiscated  to  the 
United  States  and  that  the  forfeiture  should  take  imme 
diate  effect ;  and  that  the  slaves  of  all  such  persons  should 
be  free.  Also  that  no  slaves  escaping  from  servitude 
should  be  delivered  up  unless  the  person  claiming  them 
should  prove  that  he  had  been  at  all  times  loyal  to  the 
Government.  Also  that  no  officer  in  the  military  or  naval 
service  should  assume  to  decide  whether  a  claim  made  by 
a  master  to  an  escaping  slave  was  valid  or  not. 

This  bill  was  the  piece  de  resistance  of  senatorial  debate 
for  the  whole  session.  Its  confiscatory  features  were 
attacked  on  the  4th  of  March  by  Senator  Cowan,  in  a 
speech  of  great  force.  Cowan  was  a  new  Senator  from 
Pennsylvania,  a  Republican  of  conservative  leanings, 
and  a  great  debater.  He  opposed  the  bill  on  grounds  of 
both  constitutionality  and  expediency.  On  the  24th  of 
April,  Collamer,  of  Vermont,  expressed  the  sound  opin 
ions  that  private  property  could  not  be  confiscated  except 
by  judicial  process,  and  that  even  if  it  could  be  done 
it  would  be  bad  policy,  since  it  would  tend  to  prolong 


174  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

the  war  and  would  constitute  a  barrier  against  future 
peace. 

The  Confederate  Government  had  led  the  way  by 
passing  a  law  (May  21,  1861)  sequestrating  all  debts  due 
to  Northern  individuals  or  corporations  and  authorizing 
the  payment  of  the  same  to  the  Confederate  Treasury. 
The  whole  subject  was  extremely  complex.  "There  was 
commonly,"  says  a  recent  writer  in  the  American  His 
torical  Review,  "a  failure  in  the  debates  to  discriminate 
between  a  general  confiscation  of  property  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  confiscating  government  and  the  treat 
ment  accorded  by  victorious  armies  to  private  property 
found  within  the  limits  of  military  occupation.  Thus  the 
general  rule  exempting  private  property  on  land  from  the 
sort  of  capture  property  must  suffer  at  sea,  was  erroneously 
appealed  to  as  an  inhibition  upon  the  right  of  judicial 
confiscation.  That  a  military  capture  on  land  analogous 
to  prize  at  sea  was  not  regarded  as  a  legitimate  war  mea 
sure  was  so  obvious  and  well  recognized  a  principle  that  it 
would  hardly  require  a  continual  reaffirmation.  It  was  a 
very  different  matter,  however,  so  far  as  the  law  and  prac 
tice  of  nations  was  concerned,  for  a  belligerent  to  attack 
through  its  courts  whatever  enemy's  property  might  be 
available  within  its  limits."  l 

Collamer  offered  an  amendment  to  strike  out  the  first 
section  of  the  bill  and  insert  a  clause  providing  that  every 
person  adjudged  guilty  of  the  crime  of  treason  should  suffer 
death,  or,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court,  be  imprisoned  not 
less  than  five  years  and  fined  not  less  than  ten  thousand 
dollars,  which  fine  should  be  levied  on  any  property,  real 
or  personal,  of  which  he  might  be  possessed.  The  fine 
was  to  be  in  lieu  of  confiscation.  The  aim  of  the  amend- 

1  Article  on  "  Some  Legal  Aspects  of  the  Confiscation  Acts  of  the  Civil 
War,"  by  J.  G.  Randall.    Am.  Hist.  Review,  October,  1912. 


BULL  RUN  — THE  CONFISCATION  ACT      175 

ment  was  to  substitute  due  process  of  law  in  place  of  legis 
lative  forfeiture.  Various  other  amendments  were  offered. 
On  the  6th  of  May,  the  Senate  voted  by  24  to  14  to  refer 
the  bill  and  amendments  to  a  select  committee  of  nine. 
The  House,  which  had  been  waiting  for  the  Senate  bill, 
decided  on  the  14th  of  May  to  take  up  a  measure  of  its 
own,  which  it  passed  on  the  26th.  The  select  committee 
of  the  Senate  framed  a  measure  regarding  the  emancipa 
tion  of  escaping  slaves.  This  and  the  House  bill  were  sent 
to  a  conference  committee,  which  reported  the  bill  which 
became  a  law  July  17,  1862. 

This  was  not  the  end  of  it,  however.  Provision  had  been 
made  in  the  bill  for  the  forfeiture,  by  judicial  process,  of 
the  property,  both  real  and  personal,  of  rebels,  regardless 
of  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  declares  that  "no 
attainder  of  treason  shall  work  corruption  of  blood,  or 
forfeiture,  except  during  the  life  of  the  person  attainted." 
No  such  exception  was  made  in  the  bill.  The  President 
considered  it  unconstitutional  in  this  particular,  and  he 
wrote  a  short  message  giving  his  reasons  for  withholding 
his  approval  of  the  measure.  A  rumor  of  his  intention 
reached  Senator  Fessenden,  who  called  at  the  White 
House  to  inquire  whether  it  was  true.  He  had  a  frank 
conversation  with  the  President,  the  result  of  which  was 
that  both  houses  passed  a  joint  resolution  providing  that 
no  punishment  or  proceedings  under  the  Confiscation  Act 
should  be^so  construed  as  to  work  a  forfeiture  of  the  real 
estate  of  the  offender  beyond  his  natural  life.  Lincoln's 
intended  veto  of  the  Confiscation  Bill  is  printed  on  page 
3406  of  the  Congressional  Globe.  Touching  confiscation 
in  general  he  expressed  the  golden  opinion  that  "the  se 
verest  justice  may  not  always  be  the  best  policy."  But 
he  would  not  have  vetoed  the  bill  on  grounds  of  expediency 
merely.  The  forfeiture  of  real  estate  in  perpetuity  was 


176  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

the  insuperable  objection  in  his  mind.  And  he  here  seems 
to  me  to  have  been  entirely  right.  Yet  Trumbull  had  the 
support  of  Judge  Harris,  Seward's  successor  in  the  Sen 
ate,  than  whom  nobody  stood  higher  as  a  lawyer  at  that 
day. 

The  President  then  signed  both  the  bill  and  the  joint 
resolution.  The  Confiscation  Act  remained,  however, 
practically  a  dead  letter,  except  as  to  the  freeing  of  the 
slaves.  In  the  latter  particular  it  was  the  first  great  step 
toward  complete  emancipation,  since  it  took  effect  upon 
slaves  within  our  lines,  who  could  be  reached  and  made 
free  de  facto.  It  provided  that  all  slaves  of  persons  who 
should  be  thereafter  engaged  in  rebellion,  escaping  and 
taking  refuge  in  the  lines  of  the  Union  forces,  and  all  such 
slaves  found  in  places  captured  by  such  forces,  should  be 
declared  free;  that  no  slaves  escaping  should  be  delivered 
up  unless  the  owner  should  swear  that  he  had  not  aided 
the  rebellion;  that  no  officer  of  the  United  States  should 
assume  to  decide  on  the  validity  of  the  claim  of  any  per 
son  to  an  escaping  slave;  that  the  President  should  be 
authorized  to  employ  negroes  for  the  suppression  of  the 
rebellion  in  any  capacity  he  saw  fit;  and  that  he  might 
colonize  negroes  with  their  own  consent  and  the  consent 
of  the  foreign  Government  receiving  them. 

According  to  a  report  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury 
dated  Dec.  27,  1867,  the  total  proceeds  of  confiscation 
actually  paid  into  the  Treasury  up  to  that  time  amounted 
to  the  insignificant  sum  of  $129,680. 

The  enforcement  of  the  confiscation  act  was  placed 
under  the  charge  of  the  Attorney-General.  Practically, 
however,  it  was  performed  by  officers  of  the  army,  so 
far  as  it  was  enforced  at  all.  General  Lew  Wallace,  while 
in  command  of  the  Middle  Department  at  Baltimore,  in 
1864,  issued  two  orders  declaring  his  intention  to  confis- 


BULL  RUN  — THE  CONFISCATION  ACT      177 

cate  the  property  of  certain  persons  who  were  either  serv 
ing  in  the  rebel  army  or  giving  aid  to  the  Confederate 
cause.  These  orders,  which  were  published  in  the  news 
papers,  came  to  the  notice  of  Attorney-General  Bates, 
who  at  once  wrote  to  Wallace  to  remind  him  that  the  ex 
ecution  of  the  confiscation  act  devolved  upon  the  Attor 
ney-General,  and  that  he  (Bates)  had  not  given  any  orders 
which  would  warrant  the  Commander  of  the  Middle 
Department  in  seizing  private  property,  and  requesting 
him  to  withdraw  the  orders.  Wallace  replied  that  his  con 
struction  of  the  law  differed  from  that  of  the  Attorney- 
General  and  that  he  should  execute  it  according  to  his 
own  understanding  of  it.  Thereupon  Bates  took  the  or 
ders,  and  the  correspondence,  to  the  President  and  de 
clared  his  intention  to  resign  his  office  if  his  functions 
were  usurped  by  military  men  in  the  field,  or  by  the  War 
Department.  Lincoln  took  the  papers,  and  directed  Sec 
retary  Stanton  to  require  Wallace  to  withdraw  the  two 
orders  and  to  desist  from  confiscation  altogether.  This 
was  done  by  Stanton,  but  the  orders  were  never  publicly 
withdrawn  although  action  under  them  was  discontinued. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE   EXPULSION   OF   CAMERON 

EARLY  in  the  year  1862,  it  was  found  that  the  national 
credit  was  sinking  in  consequence  of  frauds  in  the  War 
Department.  A  Committee  on  Government  Contracts 
was  appointed  by  the  House,  and  the  first  man  to  fall 
under  its  censure  was  Alexander  Cummings,  one  of  the 
two  Pennsylvania  politicians  with  whom  David  Davis  had 
made  his  bargain  for  votes  at  the  Chicago  convention. 

The  War  Department  was  represented  at  New  York  by 
General  Wool  with  a  suitable  staff,  Major  Eaton  being 
the  commissary.  There  was  also  a  Union  Defense  Com 
mittee  consisting  of  eminent  citizens  who  had  volun 
teered  to  serve  the  Government  in  whatever  capacity 
they  might  be  needed.  Nevertheless,  Secretary  Cameron 
placed  a  fund  of  two  million  dollars  in  the  hands  of  Gen 
eral  Dix,  Mr.  Opdycke,  and  Mr.  Blatchford,  to  be  dis 
bursed  by  E.  D.  Morgan  and  Alexander  Cummings,  or 
either  of  them,  for  the  purpose  of  forwarding  troops  and 
supplies  to  Washington.  As  E.  D.  Morgan  was  Governor 
of  the  State  and  was  busy  at  Albany,  this  arrangement 
would  be  likely  to  devolve  most  of  the  purchases  on  Cum 
mings  alone.  Cameron  wrote  on  April  2,  to  Cummings : 

The  Department  needs  at  this  moment  an  intelligent, 
experienced,  and  energetic  man  on  whom  it  can  rely,  to  assist 
in  pushing  forward  troops,  munitions,  and  supplies.  I  am 
aware  that  your  private  affairs  may  demand  your  time.  I  am 
sure  your  patriotism  will  induce  you  to  aid  me  even  at  some 
loss  to  yourself. 

Major  Eaton,  the  army  commissary,  distinctly  in- 


THE  EXPULSION  OF  CAMERON  179 

formed  Cummings  that  his  services  were  not  needed  in 
the  purchase  of  supplies.  Nevertheless,  Cummings  drew 
$160,000  out  of  the  two-million  fund  and  proceeded  to 
disburse  the  same.  He  first  appointed  a  certain  Captain 
Comstock  to  charter  or  purchase  vessels.  Captain  Corn- 
stock  went  to  Brooklyn,  accompanied  by  a  friend,  and 
inspected  a  steamer  appropriately  named  the  Catiline, 
which  he  found  could  be  bought  for  $18,000.  Before  he 
made  his  report  to  Cummings,  the  friend  who  accom 
panied  him  suggested  to  another  friend  named  John  E. 
Develin  that  there  was  a  chance  to  make  some  money  "by 
good  management."  Comstock  at  the  same  time  assured 
Colonel  D.  D.  Tompkins,  of  the  Quartermaster's  Depart 
ment,  that  the  ship  was  worth  $50,000.  Comstock  testi 
fied  that  he  was  sent  for  by  Thurlow  Weed  to  come  to  the 
Astor  House  at  the  outbreak  of  the  troubles,  and  that 
Weed  stated  to  him  that  he  (Weed)  was  an  agent  of  the 
Government  to  send  troops  and  munitions  of  war  to 
Washington  by  way  of  the  Chesapeake,  and  that  he 
wished  to  charter  vessels  for  that  purpose.  Afterwards 
Cummings  called  upon  Comstock  and  showed  him  the 
same  authority  that  Weed  had  shown. 

The  Catiline  was  bought  by  Develin  for  $18,000.  The 
seller  of  the  ship  testified  that  he  received,  as  security  for 
the  purchase  money,  four  notes  of  $4500  each  executed 
by  Thurlow  Weed,  John  E.  Develin,  G.  C.  Davidson,  and 
O.  B.  Matteson.  Matteson  had  been  a  member  of  a  pre 
vious  Congress  from  Utica,  New  York,  but  had  been  ex 
pelled  from  the  House.  The  Catiline  was  chartered  for 
the  Government  at  the  rate  of  $10,000  per  month  for 
three  months,  with  an  agreement  that  if  she  were  lost  in 
the  service  the  owners  should  be  paid  $50,000.  The  title 
to  the  Catiline  was,  for  convenience,  placed  in  the  name 
of  a  Mr.  Stetson. 


180  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Cummings  was  examined  by  the  Committee  on  Govern 
ment  Contracts.  He  testified  that  he  had  formerly  been 
the  publisher  of  the  Philadelphia  Evening  Bulletin,  and 
later  publisher  of  the  New  York  World,  and  that  he  had 
resided  in  the  latter  city  about  eighteen  months;  his 
family  still  residing  in  Philadelphia.  The  purchases  made 
by  him  to  be  shipped  on  the  Catiline  consisted  mainly  of 
groceries  and  provisions,  including  twenty-five  casks  of 
Scotch  ale,  and  twenty-five  casks  of  London  porter;  but 
he  testified  that  he  did  not  see  any  of  the  articles  bought, 
nor  did  he  have  any  knowledge  of  their  quality,  nor  did  he 
see  any  of  them  put  on  board  the  ship.  The  purchases,  he 
said,  were  made  from  the  firm  of  E.  Corning  &  Co.,  of 
Albany,  through  a  member  of  the  firm  named  Davidson, 
whom  Cummings  met  at  the  Astor  House.  Cummings 
assumed  that  Davidson  was  a  member  of  the  firm  because 
Davidson  told  him  so;  he  had  no  other  evidence  of  the 
fact.  He  assumed  also  that  Corning  &  Co.  were  dealers  in 
provisions,  but  had  no  absolute  knowledge  on  that  point.1 
He  supposed  that  the  goods  were  shipped  from  Albany  to 
be  loaded  on  the  Catiline,  but  did  not  know  that  such  was 
the  fact.  All  these  details  he  left  to  his  clerk,  James 
Humphrey,  who  had  been  recommended  as  clerk  by  Thur- 
low  Weed.  Cummings  testified  that  he  did  not  know 
Humphrey  before;  did  not  know  whether  he  had  ever 
been  in  business  in  Albany  or  in  New  York;  took  him  on 
Weed's  recommendation;  made  no  bargain  with  him  as 
to  salary;  did  not  know  where  he  could  be  found  now. 
Bought  a  lot  of  hard  bread  from  a  house  in  Boston.  Ques 
tioned  to  whom  he  made  payment  for  this  bread,  he  an 
swered:  "Directly  to  the  party  selling  it,  I  suppose." 
"By  you?"  "By  my  clerk,  I  suppose."  Did  not  recol 
lect  who  first  suggested  the  purchase  of  bread.  Had  no 

1  E.  Corning  &  Co.,  of  Albany,  were  dealers  in  stoves  and  hardware. 


THE  EXPULSION  OF  CAMERON  181 

directions  from  the  Government  to  purchase  any  particu 
lar  articles.  Bought  a  quantity  of  straw  hats  and  linen 
pantaloons,  thinking  they  would  be  needed  by  the  troops 
in  warm  weather.  Did  not  personally  know  that  any  of 
the  goods  had  been  loaded  on  the  steamer  or  by  whom 
they  should  have  been  so  loaded.  The  cargo  was  certified 
by  Cummings  to  Cameron  as  shipped  for  the  Govern 
ment.  Mr.  Barney,  Collector  of  the  Port,  refused  to  give 
a  clearance  to  the  Catiline  to  sail.  Mr.  Stetson,  the 
owner,  produced  a  letter  from  Thurlow  Weed  requesting 
a  clearance,  but  Barney  still  refused.  Finally  General 
Wool  gave  a  "pass"  on  which  the  Catiline  sailed  with 
out  a  clearance.  General  Wool  revoked  the  pass  on  the 
following  day,  but  the  ship  had  already  departed.1 

The  report  says:  "The  Committee  have  no  occasion  to 
call  in  question  the  integrity  of  Mr.  Cummings."  We 
must  infer,  therefore,  that  he  was  chosen  by  Cameron  to 
disburse  Government  money  in  this  emergency  because 
he  was  an  extraordinary  simpleton,  and  likely  to  be  guided 
by  Thurlow  Weed  in  buying  army  supplies  from  a  hard 
ware  firm  in  Albany,  and  an  unknown  Boston  house  that 
furnished  hard  bread. 

Congressman  Van  Wyck  of  New  York,  a  member  of  the 
Committee,  said  that  Mr.  Weed's  absence  from  home  had 
prevented  an  examination  into  the  nature  and  extent  of 
his  agency  in  the  matter  of  the  Catiline.2  At  the  time 
when  Weed's  testimony  was  wanted  he  was  in  Europe 

1  House  Report  no.  2,  37th  Congress,  2d  Session,  p.  390. 

Cummings  reappears  in  Welles's  Diary,  near  the  close  of  Andrew  Johnson's 
Administration,  as  a  favored  candidate  for  the  office  of  Commissioner  of 
Internal  Revenue.  The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Government  Contracts 
had  been  forgotten  or  only  vaguely  remembered.  Welles  had  a  dim  recollec 
tion  that  Cummings  had  a  spotted  record,  and  he  warned  Johnson  against  him. 
Seward  indorsed  him,  however;  said  he  was  "a  capital  man  for  the  place  —  no 
better  could  be  found."  (Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  in,  414.) 

2  Cong.  Globe,  February,  1862,  p.  710. 


182  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

acting  as  a  volunteer  diplomat  "assisting  to  counteract 
the  machinations  of  the  agents  of  treason  against  the 
United  States  in  that  quarter,"  as  appears  by  a  letter  of 
Secretary  Seward  to  Minister  Adams,  dated  November  7, 
1861. 

The  Committee  on  Government  Contracts  were  unable 
to  determine  whether  the  cargo  of  the  Catiline  was  a 
private  speculation  or  a  bona-fide  purchase  for  the  Gov 
ernment.  The  character  of  the  goods  purchased  and  the 
mode  of  purchase  pointed  to  the  former  conclusion. 
Scotch  ale  and  London  porter  were  not  embraced  in  any 
list  of  authorized  rations,  nor  were  straw  hats  and  linen 
pantaloons  included  in  quartermaster's  stores.  Con 
gressman  Van  Wyck  conjectured  that  it  was  a  private 
speculation  until  Collector  Barney  refused  to  grant  a 
clearance,  and  that  then  it  was  turned  over  to  the 
Government.  Mr.  Stetson,  who  applied  for  the  clear 
ance,  first  told  the  Collector  that  the  ship  was  loaded 
with  flour  and  provisions  belonging  to  several  of  his 
friends.  When  he  called  the  second  time  he  testified  that 
the  cargo  consisted  of  supplies  for  the  troops.  The  ship 
was  destroyed  by  fire  before  the  three  months'  charter 
expired. 

On  the  13th  of  January,  Henry  L.  Dawes,  of  Massa 
chusetts,  another  member  of  the  committee,  alluded  to 
certain  purchases  of  cavalry  horses,  saying: 

A  regiment  of  cavalry  has  just  reached  Louisville  one  thou 
sand  strong,  and  a  board  of  army  officers  has  condemned  four 
hundred  and  eighty-five  of  the  one  thousand  horses  as  utterly 
worthless.  The  man  who  examined  those  horses  declared,  upon 
his  oath,  that  there  is  not  one  of  them  worth  twenty  dollars. 
They  are  blind,  spavined,  ring-boned,  with  the  heaves,  with 
the  glanders,  and  with  every  disease  that  horseflesh  is  heir  to. 
Those  four  hundred  and  eighty-five  horses  cost  the  Govern 
ment,  before  they  were  mustered  into  the  service,  $58,200,  and 


THE  EXPULSION  OF  CAMERON  183 

it  cost  the  Government  to  transport  them  from  Pennsylvania 
to  Louisville,  $10,000  more  before  they  were  condemned  and 
cast  off. 

There  are,  sir,  eighty-three  regiments  of  cavalry  one  thou 
sand  strong  now  in  or  roundabout  the  army.  It  costs  $250,000 
to  put  one  of  those  regiments  upon  its  feet  before  it  marches  a 
step.  Twenty  millions  of  dollars  have  thus  far  been  expended 
upon  these  cavalry  regiments  before  they  left  the  encampments 
in  which  they  were  gathered  and  mustered  into  the  service. 
They  have  come  here  and  then  some  of  them  have  been  sent 
back  to  Elmira;  they  have  been  sent  back  to  Annapolis;  they 
have  been  sent  here  and  they  have  been  sent  there  to  spend  the 
winter;  and  many  of  the  horses  that  were  sent  back  have  been 
tied  to  posts  and  to  trees  within  the  District  of  Columbia  and 
there  left  to  starve  to  death.  A  guide  can  take  you  around  the 
District  of  Columbia  to-day  to  hundreds  of  carcasses  of  horses 
chained  to  trees  where  they  have  pined  away,  living  on  bark 
and  limbs  till  they  starve  and  die;  and  the  Committee  for  the 
District  of  Columbia  have  been  compelled  to  call  for  legislation 
here  to  prevent  the  city  wherein  we  are  assembled  from  becom 
ing  an  equine  Golgotha.1 

Horse  contracts  of  this  sort  had  been  so  plentiful  that 
Government  officials  had  gone  about  the  streets  of  Wash 
ington  with  their  pockets  full  of  them.  Some  of  these 
contracts  had  been  used  to  pay  Cameron's  political  debts 
and  to  cure  old  political  feuds,  and  banquets  had  been 
given  with  the  proceeds,  "where  the  hatchet  of  political 
animosity,"  said  Dawes,  "was  buried  in  the  grave  of 
public  confidence  and  the  national  credit  was  crucified 
between  malefactors." 

Dawes  said  also  that  there  was  "indubitable  evidence 
that  somebody  has  plundered  the  public  treasury  well- 
nigh  in  a  single  year  as  much  as  the  entire  current  yearly 
expenses  of  the  Government  which  the  people  hurled 
from  power  because  of  its  corruption"  -meaning 
Buchanan's  Administration.2 

1  Cong.  Globe,  January.  1862.  p.  298.        2  Cong.  Globe,  April,  1862,  p.  1841. 


184  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

In  the  Senate  on  the  14th,  Trumbull,  quoting  from 
the  testimony  of  the  House  Committee,  said  that  Hall's 
carbines,  originally  owned  by  the  Government,  but  con 
demned  and  sold  as  useless  at  about  $2  each,  were  pur 
chased  back  for  the  Government,  in  April  or  May,  at  $15 
each.  In  June,  the  Government  sold  them  again  at  $3.50 
each.  Afterwards  in  August,  they  were  purchased  by  an 
agent  of  the  Government  at  $12.50  each  and  turned  over 
to  the  Government  at  $22  each,  and  the  Committee  of 
the  House  was  then  trying  to  prevent  this  last  payment 
from  being  made,  and  eventually  succeeded  in  doing  so. 
The  beneficiary  in  this  case  was  one  Simon  Stevens,  not  a 
relative  of  Thaddeus  Stevens,  but  a  protege  of  his,  and  an 
occupant  of  his  law  office.  He  operated  through  General 
Fremont,  not  through  Cameron. 

"Sir,"  said  Dawes,  "amid  all  these  things  is  it  strange 
that  the  public  treasury  trembles  and  staggers  like  a 
strong  man  with  a  great  burden  upon  him?  Sir,  the  man 
beneath  an  exhausted  receiver  gasping  for  breath  is  not 
more  helpless  to-day  than  is  the  treasury  of  this  Govern 
ment  beneath  the  exhausting  process  to  which  it  is  sub 
jected." 

Somewhat  later  Congressman  Van  Wyck  showed, 
among  other  things,  that  Thurlow  Weed,  by  the  favor  of 
Cameron,  had  established  himself  between  the  Govern 
ment  and  the  powder  manufacturers  in  such  a  way  as  to 
pocket  a  commission  of  five  per  cent  on  purchases  of 
ammunition.1 

The  committee  visited  severe  censure  on  Thomas  A. 
Scott,  for  acting  as  Assistant  Secretary  of  War,  while 
holding  the  office  of  vice-president  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Central  Railroad.  Scott  said  that  he  ceased  to  draw 
salary  from  the  railroad  when  he  became  Assistant 

»  Cong.  Globe,  February.  1862,  p.  712. 


THE  EXPULSION  OF  CAMERON  185 

Secretary,  but  that  he  had  retained  his  railroad  connec 
tion  because  he  considered  it  of  more  value  to  himself 
than  the  other  position.  The  committee  considered  it 
highly  improper  for  him  to  hold  the  power  to  award  large 
Government  contracts  for  transportation  and  to  fix 
prices  therefor  while  he  had  personal  railroad  interests, 
and  while  Secretary  Cameron,  to  whom  he  owed  his 
appointment,  was  interested  in  the  Northern  Central 
Railroad.  The  latter  was  commonly  called  "Cameron's 
road."  An  order  had  been  issued  by  Scott,  without  con 
sultation  with  the  Quartermaster-General  of  the  army, 
fixing  the  rates  to  be  paid  for  the  transportation  of  troops, 
baggage,  and  supplies.  The  Quarter  master- General  tes 
tified  that  Scott's  order  as  to  prices  was  addressed  to  one 
of  his  own  subordinates  and  that  he  first  saw  it  in  the 
hands  of  that  subordinate.  He  construed  it,  however,  as 
an  order  from  his  superior  officer  and  therefore  as  govern 
ing  himself.  Officers  of  other  railroads  testified  that  the 
rates  fixed  by  Scott  were  much  too  high  considering  the 
magnitude  and  kind  of  work  to  be  done.  Thus,  the  rate 
for  transporting  troops  was  fixed  at  two  cents  per  mile 
per  man,  whether  carried  in  passenger  cars  or  in  box  cars, 
and  whether  taken  as  single  passengers  or  by  regiments. 
Nicolay  and  Hay  tell  us  that  Cameron's  departure 
from  the  Cabinet  was  in  consequence  of  his  disagreement 
with  the  President  as  to  that  part  of  his  report  relating 
to  the  arming  of  slaves;  that  although  nothing  more  was 
said  by  either  himself  or  Lincoln  on  that  subject,  "each 
of  them  realized  that  the  circumstance  had  created  a  situ 
ation  of  difficulty  and  embarrassment  which  could  not 
be  indefinitely  prolonged."  Cameron,  they  say,  began  to 
signify  his  weariness  of  the  onerous  labors  of  the  War 
Department,  and  hinted  to  the  President  that  he  would 
prefer  the  less  responsible  duties  of  a  foreign  mission.  To 


186  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

outsiders  this  affair  seemed  to  have  completely  blown  over 
when,  on  January  11,  1862,  Lincoln  wrote  the  following 
short  note: 

MY  DEAR  SIB:  As  you  have  more  than  once  expressed  a  desire 
for  a  change  of  position,  I  can  now  gratify  you  consistently 
with  my  view  of  the  public  interest.  I,  therefore,  propose  nomi 
nating  you  to  the  Senate  next  Monday  as  Minister  to  Russia. 
Very  sincerely  your  friend, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

The  real  facts  were  given  to  the  world  by  A.  K.  McClure 
somewhat  later  in  his  book  on  "Lincoln  and  Men  of  War- 
Time."  He  says  that  Cameron's  dismissal  was  due  to  the 
severe  strain  put  upon  the  national  credit,  which  led  to  the 
severest  criticisms  of  all  manner  of  public  profligacy,  cul 
minating  in  a  formal  appeal  to  the  President  from  leading 
financial  men  of  the  country  for  an  immediate  change  of 
the  Secretary  of  War;  that  Lincoln's  letter  of  dismissal 
was  sent  to  Cameron  by  the  hand  of  Secretary  Chase, 
and  that  it  was  extremely  curt,  being  almost,  if  not  quite, 
literally  as  follows:  "I  have  this  day  nominated  Hon. 
Edwin  M.  Stanton  to  be  Secretary  of  War  and  you  to 
be  Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  Russia";  that  Cameron 
in  great  agitation  brought  this  missive  to  the  room  of 
Thomas  A.  Scott,  Assistant  Secretary  of  War,  where  Mr. 
McClure  happened  to  be  dining  and  showed  it  to  them; 
that  he  wept  bitterly,  and  said  that  it  meant  his  personal 
degradation  and  political  ruin.  Scott  and  McClure  vol 
unteered  to  see  Lincoln  and  ask  him  to  withdraw  the 
offensive  letter  and  to  permit  Cameron  to  antedate  a 
letter  of  resignation,  to  which  Lincoln  consented.  "The 
letter  conveyed  by  Chase  was  recalled ;  a  new  correspond 
ence  was  prepared,  and  a  month  later  given  to  the 
public."  1 

1  Lincoln  and  Men  of  War  Time,  p.  165. 


THE   EXPULSION  OF  CAMERON  187 

McClure  palliates  Cameron's  conduct  by  saying  that 
"contracts  had  to  be  made  with  such  haste  as  to  forbid 
the  exercise  of  sound  discretion  in  obtaining  what  the 
country  needed;  and  Cameron,  with  his  peculiar  political 
surroundings  and  a  horde  of  partisans  clamoring  for  spoils, 
was  compelled  either  to  reject  the  confident  expectation 
of  his  friends  or  to  submit  to  imminent  peril  from  the 
grossest  abuse  of  his  delegated  authority."  This  is  an 
other  way  of  saying  that  he  was  compelled  either  to  pay 
his  political  debts  out  of  his  own  pocket,  or  give  his  hench 
men  access  to  the  public  treasury,  and  that  he  chose  the 
latter  alternative. 

The  House  of  Representatives  passed  a  resolution  of 
censure  upon  Cameron  for  investing  Alexander  Cum- 
mings  with  the  control  of  large  sums  of  the  public  money 
and  authorizing  him  to  purchase  military  supplies  with 
out  restriction  when  the  services  of  competent  public 
officers  were  available.  A  few  days  later  the  President 
sent  to  the  House  a  special  message,  assuming  for  himself 
and  the  entire  Cabinet  the  responsibility  for  adopting 
that  irregular  mode  of  procuring  supplies  in  the  then 
existing  emergency,  a  message  which,  when  read  in  the 
light  of  Cummings's  testimony,  adds  nothing  to  Lincoln's 
fame. 

There  was  a  struggle  in  executive  session  of  the  Senate, 
lasting  four  days,  over  the  confirmation  of  Cameron  as 
Minister  to  Russia.  Trumbull  took  the  lead  in  opposition. 
He  considered  it  an  immoral  act,  like  giving  to  an  unfaith 
ful  servant  a  "character"  and  exposing  society  to  new 
malfeasance  at  his  hands.  He  believed  and  said  that  the 
new  office  conferred  upon  him  would  serve  simply  as 
whitewash  to  enable  him  to  recover  his  seat  in  the  Senate, 
and  that  that  was  the  reason  why  he  wanted  the  mission 
to  Russia. 


188  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Sumner,  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations,  had  been  much  impressed  by  Cameron's  anti- 
slavery  zeal.  As  soon  as  the  nomination  came  in,  he 
moved  that  it  be  confirmed  unanimously  and  without 
reference  to  any  committee,  which  was  the  usual  custom 
in  cases  where  ex-Senators  of  good  repute  were  nominated 
to  office.  Objection  being  made,  the  nomination  went 
over.  This  was  the  day  on  which  Dawes  made  his  speech 
in  the  House.  Sumner  saw  the  speech,  called  Cameron's 
attention  to  it,  and  asked  what  answer  should  be  made  to 
such  accusations.  Cameron  replied  that  he  had  never 
made  a  contract  for  any  kind  of  army  supplies  since  he 
had  been  Secretary  of  War,  but  had  left  all  such  business 
to  the  heads  of  bureaus  charged  with  such  duties,  and 
had  never  interfered  with  them.  On  the  15th  he  put  this 
statement  in  writing  and  addressed  it  to  Vice-President 
Hamlin :  - 

I  take  this  occasion  to  state  that  I  have  myself  not  made  a 
single  contract  for  any  purpose  whatever,  having  always  inter 
preted  the  laws  of  Congress  as  contemplating  that  the  heads  of 
bureaus,  who  are  experienced  and  able  officers  of  the  regular 
army,  shall  make  all  contracts  for  supplies  for  the  branches  of 
the  service  under  their  care  respectively. 

So  far  I  have  not  found  any  occasion  to  interfere  with  them 
in  the  discharge  of  this  portion  of  their  responsible  duties. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

SIMON  CAMERON. 
HON.  H.  HAMLIN, 

President  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

In  reply  Dawes  produced  documents  to  show  that  there 
were  then  outstanding  contracts,  made  by  Cameron  him 
self,  for  1,836,900  muskets  and  rifles,  and  for  only  64,000 
by  the  Chief  of  Ordnance,  the  officer  charged  with  that 
duty,  and  that  on  the  very  day  when  the  letter  to  Hamlin 
was  written,  Cameron  made  a  contract,  against  the  advice 


THE  EXPULSION  OF  CAMERON  189 

of  the  Chief  of  Ordnance,  for  an  unlimited  number  of 
swords  and  sabres  —  all  that  a  certain  Philadelphia  firm 
could  produce  in  a  given  time.  This  was  done  after  he 
had  resigned  and  before  his  successor,  Stanton,  had  been 
sworn  in.1 

Cameron  was  confirmed  as  Minister  to  Russia  on  the 
17th,  by  a  vote  of  28  to  14.  The  Republican  Senators 
who  voted  against  confirmation  were  Foster,  Grimes, 
Hale,  Harlan,  Trumbull,  and  Wilkinson.  Trumbull 
handed  me  this  list  of  names  for  publication,  saying  that 
all  of  them  desired  to  have  it  published. 

Cameron  remained  abroad  until  time  and  more  exciting 
events  had  cast  a  kindly  shadow  on  his  record.  He  then 
came  home  and  a  few  years  later  was  reflected  to  the 
Senate.  When  the  attack  was  made  on  his  dear  friend 
Sumner,  which  ended  in  displacing  him  from  the  chair 
manship  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  which 
he  had  held  ten  years,  Cameron  retreated  to  a  Committee 
room,  as  to  a  cyclone  cellar,  where  he  remained  until  the 
deed  was  done,  leaving  Trumbull,  Schurz,  and  Wilson  to 
fight  the  battle  for  his  dear  friend.  Then  he  returned  and 
sat  down  in  the  chair  thus  made  vacant.  He  subse 
quently  explained  that  he  did  so  because  his  name  was 
the  next  one  to  Sumner's  on  the  committee  list.2 

1  Dawes,  Cong.  Globe,  April,  1862,  p.  1841. 

2  Congressional  Record,  43d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  p.  3434. 


CHAPTER  XII 

ARBITRARY   ARRESTS 

THE  jaunty  manner  in  which  Secretary  Seward  admin 
istered  the  laws  respecting  the  liberty  of  the  citizen  in  the 
earlier  years  of  the  war  is  treated  by  John  Hay  with  a 
humorous  touch  under  date  October  22,  1861 : 

To-day  Deputy  Marshal  came  and  asked  what  he  should  do 
with  process  to  be  served  on  Porter  in  contempt  business.  I 
took  him  over  to  Seward  and  Seward  said:  "The  President 
instructs  you  that  the  habeas  corpus  is  suspended  in  this  city  at 
present,  and  forbids  you  to  serve  any  process  upon  any  officer 
here."  Turning  to  me:  "That  is  what  the  President  says,  is  it 
not,  Mr.  Hay?'*  "Precisely  his  words,"  I  replied;  and  the 
thing  was  done.1 

Prior  to  the  assembling  of  Congress  in  July,  1861,  the 
President  had  given  to  General  Winfield  Scott  authority 
in  writing  to  suspend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  at  any  point  on  the  line  of  the  movement  of  troops 
between  Philadelphia  and  Washington  City.  Without 
other  authority  Seward  began  to  issue  orders  for  the  ar 
rest  and  imprisonment  of  persons  suspected  of  disloyal 
acts  or  designs,  not  only  on  the  line  between  Philadel 
phia  and  Washington  City,  but  in  all  parts  of  the 
country. 

When  the  special  session  of  Congress  began,  Senator 
Wilson,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs, 
introduced  a  joint  resolution  to  declare  these  and  other 
acts  of  the  President  "legal  and  valid  to  the  same  intent 
and  with  the  same  effect  as  if  they  had  been  issued  and 

1  Letters  and  Diaries,  i,  47. 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  191 

done  under  the  previous  express  authority  and  direction 
of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States."  The  clause  of  the 
Constitution  which  says  that  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  shall  not  be  suspended  unless  when,  in  cases 
of  rebellion  or  invasion,  the  public  safety  may  require  it, 
does  not  say  in  what  mode,  or  by  what  authority,  it  may 
be  suspended. 

Straightway  there  were  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the 
lodgment  of  the  power  to  suspend,  whether  it  was  in  the 
executive  or  in  the  legislative  branch  of  the  Government. 
Other  differences  cropped  up  as  to  the  phraseology  of  the 
Wilson  Resolution  and  its  legal  intendment.  It  might  be 
construed  as  an  affirmance  by  Congress  that  the  Presi 
dent's  act  suspending  the  writ  was  lawful  at  the  time  when 
he  did  it,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  became  lawful  only 
after  Congress  had  so  voted,  and  hence  was  unlawful 
before.  These  diversities  of  opinion  were  very  tenaciously 
held  by  different  members  of  the  Senate  and  House,  of 
equal  standing  in  the  legal  profession.  The  result  was 
that  Wilson's  joint  resolution  was  debated  at  great  length, 
but  did  not  pass.  Instead  of  it  an  amendment  was  added 
to  one  of  the  military  bills  declaring  that  all  acts,  procla 
mations,  and  orders  of  the  President  after  the  4th  of 
March,  1861,  respecting  the  army  and  navy,  should  stand 
approved  and  legalized  as  if  they  had  had  the  previous 
express  authority  of  Congress;  and  the  bill  was  passed  as 
amended.  This  was  understood  to  be  a  mere  makeshift 
for  the  time  being. 

The  general  question  was  again  brought  to  the  atten 
tion  of  Congress  by  Trumbull,  December  12,  1861,  when 
he  introduced  in  the  Senate  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  that  the  Secretary  of  State  be  directed  to  inform 
the  Senate  whether,  in  the  loyal  states  of  the  Union,  any  person 
or  persons  have  been  arrested  by  orders  from  him  or  his 


192  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

department;  and  if  so,  under  what  law  said  arrests  have  been 
made  and  said  persons  imprisoned. 

When  this  resolution  came  up  for  consideration  (Decem 
ber  16),  Senator  Dixon,  of  Connecticut,  objected  strongly 
to  it.  He  thought  that  it  was  unnecessary  and  unwise, 
and  that  it  could  result  in  nothing  advantageous  to  the 
cause  of  the  Union.  Some  of  the  persons  referred  to,  he 
said,  had  been  arrested  in  his  own  state.  They  had  mani 
fested  their  treasonable  purposes  by  attempting  to  insti 
tute  a  series  of  peace  meetings,  so-called,  by  which  they 
hoped  to  debauch  the  public  mind  under  false  pretense  of 
restoring  peaceful  relations  between  the  North  and  the 
South.  The  Secretary  of  State  had  put  a  sudden  stop 
to  their  treasonable  designs  by  arresting  and  imprisoning 
one  or  more  of  them.  He  contended  that  the  Secretary  had 
done  precisely  the  right  thing,  at  precisely  the  right  time, 
and  had  nipped  treason  in  Connecticut  in  the  bud.  The 
only  criticism  which  loyal  citizens  had  to  make  of  his 
doings  was  that  he  had  not  arrested  a  greater  number.  If 
there  had  been  any  error  on  the  part  of  the  Executive,  it 
had  been  on  the  side  of  lenity  and  indulgence.  He,  Dixon, 
would  not  vote  for  an  inquiry  into  the  legality  of  such 
arrests  because  they  found  their  justification  in  the  dire 
necessity  of  the  time. 

Trumbull  asked  how  the  Senator  knew  that  the  persons 
arrested  were  traitors.  Who  was  to  decide  that  question? 
If  people  were  to  be  arrested  and  imprisoned  indefinitely, 
without  any  charges  filed  against  them,  without  examina 
tion,  without  an  opportunity  to  reply,  at  the  click  of  the 
telegraph,  in  localities  where  the  courts  were  open,  far 
from  the  theatre  of  war,  such  acts  were  the  very  essence 
of  despotism.  The  only  purpose  of  making  the  inquiry 
was  to  regulate  these  proceedings  by  law.  If  additional 
legislation  was  necessary  to  put  down  treason  or  punish 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  193 

rebel  sympathizers  in  Connecticut,  or  in  any  other  loyal 
state,  he  (Trumbull)  was  ready  to  give  it,  but  he  was  not 
willing  to  sanction  lawlessness  on  the  part  of  public  officials 
on  the  plea  of  necessity.  He  denied  the  necessity.  The 
principle  contended  for  by  the  Senator  from  Connecticut 
would  justify  mobs,  riots,  anarchy.  He  understood  that 
some  of  the  parties  arrested  had  been  discharged  without 
trial  and  he  asked  if  Mr.  Dixon  justified  that.  Then  the 
following  ensued: 

MR.  DIXON.  I  do. 

MR.  TRUMBULL.  Then  the  Senator  justifies  putting  innocent 
men  in  prison.  Else  why  were  they  discharged?  I  take  it  that 
was  the  reason  for  their  discharge.  I  have  heard  of  such  cases. 

MR.  DIXON.  They  ought  to  be  discharged,  then. 

MR.  TRUMBULL.  They  ought  to  be  discharged,  and  they 
ought  to  be  arrested,  too.  An  innocent  man  ought  to  be 
arrested,  put  into  prison,  and  by  and  by  discharged.  Sir,  that 
is  not  my  idea  of  individual  or  constitutional  liberty.  I  am 
engaged,  and  the  people  whom  I  represent  are  engaged,  in  the 
maintenance  of  the  Constitution  and  the  rights  of  the  citizens 
under  it.  We  are  fighting  for  the  Government  as  our  fathers 
made  it.  The  Constitution  is  broad  enough  to  put  down  this 
rebellion  without  any  violations  of  it.  I  do  not  apprehend  that 
the  present  Executive  of  the  United  States  will  assume  despotic 
powers.  He  is  the  last  man  to  do  it.  I  know  that  his  whole 
heart  is  engaged  in  endeavoring  to  crush  this  rebellion,  and  I 
know  that  he  would  be  the  last  man  to  overturn  the  Constitu 
tion  in  doing  it.  But,  sir,  we  may  not  always  have  the  same 
person  at  the  head  of  our  affairs.  We  may  have  a  man  of  very 
different  character,  and  what  we  are  doing  to-day  will  become 
a  precedent  upon  which  he  will  act.  Suppose  that  when  the 
trouble  existed  in  Kansas,  a  few  years  ago,  the  then  President 
of  the  United  States  had  thought  proper  to  arrest  the  Senator 
or  myself,  and  send  him  or  me  to  prison  without  examination, 
without  opportunity  to  answer,  because  in  his  opinion  we  were 
dangerous  to  the  peace  of  the  country,  and  the  necessity  jus 
tified  it.  What  would  the  Senator  have  thought  of  such 
action? 


194  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

The  debate  lasted  the  whole  day.  Senators  Hale, 
Fessenden,  Kennedy,  and  Pearce,  of  Maryland,  supported 
the  resolution.  Senators  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts,  and 
Browning,  of  Illinois,  opposed  it. 

Read  in  the  light  of  the  present  day  the  arguments  of 
the  opposition  are  extremely  flimsy.  They  said  in  effect: 
"We  know  that  our  rulers  mean  well;  if  we  ask  them  any 
questions,  we  shall  cast  a  doubt  upon  their  acts  and  then 
the  wicked  will  be  encouraged  in  their  wrongdoing,  and 
treason  will  multiply  in  the  land."  It  was  Trumbull's 
opinion  that  arbitrary  arrests  were  causing  division  and 
dissension  among  the  loyal  people  of  the  North,  and  were 
thus  doing  more  harm  than  good,  even  from  the  stand 
point  of  their  apologists.  Democratic  conventions  cen 
sured  them.  That  of  Indiana,  for  example,  resolved: 

That  the  total  disregard  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  by  the 
authorities  over  us  and  the  seizure  and  imprisonment  of  the 
citizens  of  the  loyal  states  where  the  judiciary  is  in  full  opera 
tion,  without  warrant  of  law  and  without  assigning  any  cause, 
or  giving  the  party  arrested  any  opportunity  of  defense,  are 
flagrant  violations  of  the  Constitution,  and  most  alarming  acts 
of  usurpation  of  power,  which  should  receive  the  stern  rebuke  of 
every  lover  of  his  country,  and  of  every  man  who  prizes  the 
security  and  blessings  of  life,  liberty,  and  property. 

At  the  close  of  the  debate,  Senator  Doolittle  moved  to 
refer  the  resolutions  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
in  order  to  have  a  report  on  the  question  whether  the 
right  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  appertains  to 
the  President  or  to  Congress.  This  motion  was  opposed 
by  Trumbull,  but  it  prevailed  by  a  vote  of  25  to  17,  and 
the  subject  was  shelved  for  six  months. 

The  question  upon  which  Senator  Doolittle  wanted 
information  had  already  been  decided,  so  far  as  one  emi 
nent  jurist  could  decide  it,  in  the  case  of  John  Merry  man, 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  195 

a  citizen  of  Maryland,  who  was  arrested  at  his  home  in 
the  middle  of  the  night  on  the  25th  of  May,  1861.  He 
applied  to  Chief  Justice  Taney  for  a  writ  directing  Gen 
eral  Cadwalader,  the  commandant  of  Fort  McHenry,  to 
produce  him  in  court,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  been 
arrested  contrary  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States.  He  stated  that  he  had  been  taken  from 
his  bed  at  midnight  by  an  armed  force  pretending  to  act 
under  military  orders  from  some  person  to  him  unknown. 

The  Chief  Justice  issued  his  writ  and  General  Cadwal 
ader  sent  his  regrets  by  Colonel  Lee,  saying  that  the  pris 
oner  was  charged  with  various  acts  of  treason  and  that  the 
arrest  was  made  by  order  of  General  Keim,  who  was  not 
within  the  limits  of  his  command.  He  said  further  that 
he  was  authorized  by  the  President  of  the  United  States 
to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  for  the  public  safety. 
He  requested  that  further  action  be  postponed  until  he 
could  receive  additional  instructions  from  the  President. 

Judge  Taney  thereupon  issued  an  attachment  against 
General  Cadwalader  for  disobedience  to  the  high  writ  of 
the  court.  The  next  day  United  States  Marshal  Bonifant 
certified  that  he  sent  in  his  name  from  the  outer  gate  of 
the  fort,  which  he  was  not  permitted  to  enter,  and  that  the 
messenger  returned  with  the  reply  that  there  was  no 
answer  to  his  card,  and  that  he  was  thereupon  unable  to 
serve  the  writ.  The  Chief  Justice  then  read  from  manu 
script  as  follows: 

^rl.  The  President,  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States,  cannot  suspend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus,  nor  authorize  any  military  officer  to  do  so. 

2.  A  military  officer  has  no  right  to  arrest  and  detain  a  per 
son  not  subject  to  the  rules  and  articles  of  war,  for  an  offense 
against  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  except  in  aid  of  the  judi 
cial  authority  and  subject  to  its  control,  and  if  the  party  is 


196  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

arrested  by  the  military,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  officer  to  deliver 
him  over  immediately  to  the  civil  authority  to  be  dealt  with 
according  to  law. 

The  Chief  Justice  then  remarked  orally  that  if  the 
party  named  in  the  attachment  were  before  the  court  he 
should  fine  and  imprison  him,  but  that  it  was  useless  to 
attempt  to  enforce  his  legal  authority,  and  he  should, 
therefore,  call  upon  the  President  of  the  United  States  to 
perform  his  constitutional  duty  and  enforce  the  process  of 
the  court. 

July  8,  1862,  the  House,  after  a  brief  debate,  passed 
a  bill  reported  by  its  Judiciary  Committee  directing  the 
Secretaries  of  State  and  of  War  to  report  to  the  judges  of 
the  courts  of  the  United  States  the  names  of  all  persons 
held  as  political  prisoners,  residing  in  the  jurisdiction  of 
said  judges,  and  providing  for  their  prompt  release  unless 
the  grand  jury  should  find  indictments  against  them  dur 
ing  the  first  term  of  court  thereafter.  The  bill  also  author 
ized  the  President,  during  any  recess  of  Congress,  to  sus 
pend  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  throughout 
the  United  States,  or  any  part  thereof,  in  cases  of  rebel 
lion,  or  invasion,  where  the  public  safety  might  require  it, 
until  the  meeting  of  Congress.  Mr.  Bingham,  of  Ohio, 
who  reported  the  bill,  explained  that  the  committee  did 
not  attempt  to  decide  whether  the  right  to  suspend  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  vested  in  the  executive  or  in  the 
legislative  branch  of  the  Government.  That  was  a  matter 
of  dispute,  and  the  bill  was  intended  to  settle  doubts, 
not  theroretically  but  practically.  If  the  right  belonged 
to  the  Executive  under  the  Constitution  the  passage  of 
the  bill  would  do  no  harm;  if  it  belonged  to  Congress  the 
bill  would  enable  the  President  to  exercise  it  legally.  A 
motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table  was  negatived  by  a  vote 
of  29  to  89,  after  which  it  was  passed  without  a  division. 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  197 

July  15,  Trumbull  reported  this  bill  from  the  Judiciary 
Committee  of  the  Senate  with  a  recommendation  that 
it  pass.  It  was  opposed  vigorously  by  Wilson,  of  Massa 
chusetts,  who  called  it  a  general  jail  delivery  for  the  bene 
fit  of  traitors.  He  moved  to  strike  out  all  of  it  except  the 
section  which  authorized  the  President  to  suspend  the 
privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  This  motion  was 
rejected  by  a  majority  of  one,  but  the  session  came  to  an 
end  on  the  following  day  without  a  final  vote  on  the  pas 
sage  of  the  bill. 

In  the  meantime  President  Lincoln  had  seen  fit  to 
transfer  the  license  of  making  arbitrary  arrests  from  the 
Secretary  of  State  to  the  Secretary  of  War.  The  change 
was  no  betterment,  however,  for,  where  Seward  had  pre 
viously  chastised  the  suspected  ones  with  whips,  Stanton 
now  chastised  them  with  scorpions.  Arbitrary  arrests 
became  more  numerous  and  arbitrary  than  before.  A 
special  bureau  was  created  for  them  under  charge  of  an 
officer  styled  the  Provost  Marshal  of  the  War  Depart 
ment. 

In  the  ensuing  political  campaign  the  Democrats  made 
the  greatest  possible  use  of  the  issue  thus  presented,  and 
they  showed  large  gains  in  the  congressional  elections  in 
the  autumn  of  1862.  They  carried  New  York,  New  Jer 
sey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Wisconsin. 
Horatio  Seymour  was  elected  governor  of  the  Empire 
State,  and  William  A.  Richardson  (Democrat)  was  cho 
sen  by  the  legislature  of  Illinois  as  Senator  in  place  of 
Browning,  who  was  filling  the  vacancy  caused  by  the  death 
of  Senator  Douglas.  It  is  impossible  to  say  how  much 
influence  the  arbitrary  arrests  had  in  producing  these 
results,  but  it  is  certain  that  the  Republican  leaders  were 
alarmed.  Stanton  fell  into  a  panic.  The  general  jail  deliv 
ery  apprehended  by  Wilson  took  place  by  a  stroke  of 


198  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Stanton's  pen  on  the  22d  of  November,  without  waiting 
for  the  final  vote  on  Trumbull's  bill,  and  Wilson  himself 
voted  for  the  bill. 

In  the  House,  Thaddeus  Stevens  introduced  a  bill  to 
indemnify  the  President  and  all  persons  acting  under  his 
authority  for  arrests  and  imprisonments  previously  made. 
This  was  passed  under  the  previous  question,  December  8, 
unfairly  and  without  debate. 

When  Congress  reassembled  in  December,  Trumbull 
called  up  the  House  bill  and  offered  a  substitute  for  it.  He 
held  that  under  the  Constitution  Congress  must  author 
ize  and  regulate  the  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
He  would  not,  however,  limit  the  exercise  of  the  executive 
power  to  the  time  of  meeting  of  the  next  Congress,  as  the 
House  bill  provided.  His  substitute  proposed  that  the 
suspension  of  the  writ  should  be  left  to  the  discretion  of 
the  President  as  to  time  and  place  during  the  continuance 
of  the  rebellion,  but  that  political  prisoners  should  not 
be  held  indefinitely  without  knowing  the  charges  against 
them.  The  second  section  provided  that  lists  of  all  pris 
oners  of  this  class  in  the  loyal  states  should  be  furnished, 
within  twenty  days,  to  the  courts  of  the  respective  dis 
tricts  and  laid  before  the  grand  juries  with  a  statement  of 
the  charges  against  them,  and  if  no  indictments  should  be 
found  against  them  during  that  term  of  court  they  should 
be  discharged  upon  taking  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the 
United  States,  and  (if  required  by  the  judge)  giving  a 
bond  for  good  behavior.  Future  arrests  for  political 
offenses  were  to  be  regulated  in  like  manner.  Collamer 
moved  to  strike  out  the  second  section,  but  failed  by 
two  votes. 

Republican  resistance  to  this  measure  now  ceased  and 
the  r61e  of  opposition  was  taken  up  by  the  Democrats. 
Powell,  of  Kentucky,  contended  that  the  power  to  sus- 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  199 

pend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  lodged  in  Congress 
exclusively  and  could  not  be  delegated  to  the  President. 
He  raised  the  objection  also  that  there  was  no  definition 
of  the  phrase  "political  offenses."  Trumbull  agreed  to 
strike  out  that  phrase  altogether,  in  which  case  the 
President  would  have  the  power  to  suspend  the  writ  for 
all  offenses,  and  could  determine  for  himself  which  ones 
were  political  and  which  were  non-political.  As  to  the 
right  of  Congress  to  delegate  its  own  powers  to  the  Presi 
dent  in  analogous  cases,  he  cited  the  power  to  borrow 
money,  the  power  to  grant  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal, 
and  the  power  to  call  forth  the  militia,  all  of  which  were 
lodged  in  Congress,  but  which  Congress  never  exercised 
directly,  but  only  by  delegating  its  powers  to  the  Execu 
tive. 

Senator  Carlile,  of  Virginia,  held  that  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  ought  never  to  be  suspended  in  places  where 
the  courts  were  open.  Trumbull  replied  that  if  it  were  not 
suspended  in  those  places  it  could  never  be  suspended  at 
all,  for  if  there  were  no  courts  open,  the  writ  itself  could 
not  be  issued.  Yet  the  Constitution  clearly  contemplated 
the  necessity  of  suspending  it  in  certain  conditions  where 
it  actually  existed. 

February  23, 1863,  Trumbull's  substitute  was  agreed  to 
by  yeas  25,  nays  12,  and  the  bill  was  passed  by  24  to  13. 
All  of  the  negative  votes,  except  two,  were  cast  by  Demo 
crats. 

February  27,  the  Senate  took  up  the  Stevens  House  bill 
to  indemnify  the  President  and  adopted  a  substitute  pro 
posed  by  Trumbull.  The  substitute  was  not  adopted  by 
the  House,  but  a  conference  was  asked  for  and  agreed  to 
by  the  Senate.  The  conferees  decided  to  consolidate  into 
one  act  the  Indemnity  Bill  and  the  Habeas  Corpus  Bill, 
which  was  still  pending  between  the  two  houses.  The 


200  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

report  of  the  Conference  Committee  was  presented  to  the 
Senate  by  Trumbull  on  March  2,  one  day  before  the  end 
of  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress. 

Except  the  financial  bills,  this  was  the  most  important 
measure  of  the  session,  and  the  one  about  which  the  most 
heat  had  been  engendered.  On  the  24th  of  September, 
1862,  the  President  had  proclaimed  martial  law  through 
out  the  nation  as  to  persons  discouraging  enlistments 
or  resisting  the  Conscription  Act  and  had  suspended  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  as  to  such  persons.  On  the  1st  of 
January  following,  he  had  issued  the  Emancipation  Proc 
lamation,  of  which  he  had  given  preliminary  notice  one 
hundred  days  before.  These  measures  were  extremely 
distasteful  to  the  Democrats  and  especially  so  to  those  of 
the  border  slave  states.  The  pending  measure  was  in 
tended  to  condone  all  former  arbitrary  arrests  and  to 
sanction  an  indefinite  number  in  the  future,  although 
providing  for  speedy  trials. 

When  the  report  was  presented,  Powell,  of  Kentucky, 
moved  to  postpone  it  till  the  following  day.  Trumbull 
would  not  agree  to  any  postponement  unless  there  was 
an  understanding  on  both  sides  that  a  vote  should  be 
taken  within  a  limited  time.  It  was  finally  agreed  be 
tween  himself  and  Bayard,  of  Delaware,  that  it  should  be 
postponed  until  seven  o'clock  in  the  evening,  with  the 
understanding  that  there  should  be  no  filibustering  on  the 
measure.  The  postponement  was  to  be  for  debate  and 
discussion  only.  "So  far  as  I  know,  or  can  learn,  or  be 
lieve,"  said  Bayard,  "it  is  delay  for  no  other  purpose." 
Powell  was  present  when  this  colloquy  took  place  and  he 
neither  affirmed  nor  denied.  Trumbull  took  it  to  be  an 
agreement  between  the  two  political  parties. 

The  debate  began  with  a  speech  from  Senator  Wall 
(Democrat),  of  New  Jersey,  who  held  the  floor  till  mid- 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  201 

night,  when  Saulsbury,  of  Delaware,  moved  that  the 
Senate  adjourn.  The  motion  was  negatived  by  5  to  31. 
Powell  moved  that  the  bill  be  laid  upon  the  table.  This 
was  negatived  without  a  division.  Then  Powell  began  a 
speech  against  the  bill.  At  12.40  A.M.,  Richardson  moved 
that  the  Senate  adjourn;  negatived  by  5  to  30.  Powell 
continued  his  speech  and  became  involved  in  a  running 
debate  with  Cowan,  of  Pennsylvania,  who  took  the  floor 
after  Powell  had  finished  and  made  a  speech,  apparently 
unpremeditated,  but  nevertheless  a  great  speech,  going 
to  the  foundation  of  things  and  showing  that  the 
Administration  must  be  sustained  in  this  crisis,  since 
otherwise  the  fabric  of  self-government  in  the  United 
States  would  perish.  He  did  not  say  that  he  approved  of, 
or  condoned,  arbitrary  arrests  in  the  loyal  states.  All  his 
implications  were  to  the  contrary,  but  he  insisted  that 
those  who  would  save  the  country  and  ward  off  chaos  and 
anarchy  could  not  pause  now  to  contend  with  each  other 
on  the  issue  whether  the  President  had  the  right  to  sus 
pend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  or  whether  Congress  had  it. 
He  said  that  he  observed  signs,  on  the  Democratic  side, 
of  filibustering  against  the  bill,  and  he  thought  that  such 
tactics  were  unjustifiable  and  highly  dangerous.  His 
argument  carried  the  greater  force  because  of  his  habit 
ual  conservatism.  While  it  did  not,  perhaps,  change  any 
votes,  it  probably  dampened  the  resistance  of  the  North 
ern  Democrats  to  the  bill. 

When  Cowan  had  concluded,  Powell  took  the  floor  to 
reply.  At  1.53  A.M.,  Bayard  interrupted  him  with  a  mo 
tion  to  adjourn,  which  was  negatived  by  4  to  35.  Powell 
resumed  his  speech  and  made  a  much  longer  one  than  his 
first,  at  the  end  of  which  he  moved  an  adjournment, 
negatived  by  4  to  32.  Then  Bayard  made  a  long  speech 
against  the  bill.  He  finished  at  5  o'clock  and  Powell  made 


202  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

another  motion  to  adjourn,  which  was  negatived,  4  to  18, 
no  quorum  voting. 

Some  confusion  followed  the  disclosure  of  the  absence 
of  a  quorum.  Several  motions  were  made  and  withdrawn, 
and  finally  Fessenden  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on 
Powell's  motion  to  adjourn.  In  the  mean  time  a  quorum 
had  been  drummed  up  and  the  roll-call  showed  4  yeas  to 
33  nays.  There  was  considerable  noise  and  confusion  on 
the  floor  when  the  result  was  announced  and  the  presiding 
officer  (Pomeroy,  of  Kansas)  said  quickly: 

The  question  is  on  concurring  in  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  Conference.  Those  in  favor  of  concurring  in  the  report  will 
say  "  aye  " ;  those  opposed,"  no."  The  ayes  have  it.  It  is  a  vote. 
The  report  is  concurred  in. 

Trumbull  instantly  moved  to  take  up  a  bill  from  the 
House  relating  to  public  grounds  in  Washington  City,  and 
his  motion  was  agreed  to.  Then  Powell  wanted  to  go  on 
with  the  Indemnity  Bill  and  was  informed  by  Grimes 
that  it  had  already  passed.  He  denied  that  it  had  passed 
and  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays.  Trumbull  claimed  the 
floor  and  his  claim  was  sustained  by  the  chair.  Powell 
called  it  a  piece  of  "jockeying."  After  some  further 
recrimination  the  Senate  adjourned. 

On  reassembling,  the  question  whether  the  bill  had 
passed  or  not  was  again  taken  up.  The  Senate  Journal 
showed  that  it  had  passed,  and  the  question  arose  on  a 
motion  to  correct  the  Journal.  In  the  debate  which  en 
sued  it  was  proved  that  the  presiding  officer  did  actually 
put  the  motion  in  the  words  quoted  above;  that,  of  the 
four  Democrats  who  voted  on  the  last  roll-call,  none 
heard  it;  that  the  Democrats  were  in  fact  filibustering 
against  the  bill,  or  at  all  events  that  Powell  was  doing  so, 
for  he  avowed  that  he  had  intended  to  defeat  it  by  any 
means  in  his  power.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  doubt 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  203 

that  the  passage  of  the  bill  was  accomplished  by  the  sharp 
practice  of  Pomeroy;  but  it  was  damnum  absque  injuria, 
snap  judgment  being  no  worse  than  filibustering.  More 
over,  there  is  evidence  that  of  the  thirteen  Democratic 
Senators,  only  four  or  five  were  really  determined  to  kill 
the  bill  at  all  hazards.  All  except  that  number  absented 
themselves  from  the  night  session,  while  all  or  nearly  all 
the  Republicans  remained  in  their  places. 

The  Conference  Report  was  concurred  in  on  the  2d  of 
March  and  the  bill  was  approved  by  the  President  on  the 
following  day.  We  may  infer,  therefore,  that  the  power  to 
suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  resides  in  the  legislative 
branch  of  the  Government,  of  which  the  President  is  a 
part,  and  that  Congress  may  delegate  its  powers  to  the 
President  and  prescribe  conditions  and  limitations  to  its 
exercise. 

No  legislation  more  wholesome  was  enacted  during  the 
war  period.  No  act  of  the  period  was  more  precise  and 
lucid  and  less  equivocal  in  its  terms.  Yet  within  two 
months  it  was  grossly  violated  by  the  banishment  of 
Clement  L.  Vallandigham,  an  ex-member  of  Congress 
from  Ohio. 

Vallandigham  was  the  incarnation  of  Copperheadism. 
I  heard  his  speech  of  January  14,  1863,  in  the  House,  in 
which  he  discharged  all  the  pro-slavery  virus  that  he  had 
been  collecting  from  his  boyhood  days.  As  a  public  speaker 
he  had  no  attractions,  but  rather,  as  it  seemed  to  me,  the 
tone  and  front  of  a  fallen  angel  defying  the  Almighty. 
There  was  neither  humor  nor  persuasion  nor  conciliation 
in  his  make-up.  He  was  cold  as  ice  and  hard  as  iron.  Al 
though  born  and  bred  in  a  free  state,  he  avowed  himself  a 
pro-slavery  man.  In  the  speech  referred  to  he  took  two 
hours  to  prove  the  following  propositions:  (1)  That  the 
Southern  Confederacy  never  could  be  conquered;  (2)  that 


204  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

the  Union  never  could  be  restored  by  war;  (3)  that  it  could 
be  restored  by  peace;  (4)  that  whatever  else  might  hap 
pen,  African  slavery  would  be  "fifty -fold  stronger"  at  the 
end  of  the  war  than  it  had  been  at  the  beginning. 

General  Ambrose  E.  Burnside,  after  his  defeat  at 
Fredericksburg,  had  been  sent  to  take  command  of  the 
Department  of  the  Ohio.  Vallandigham  was  now  seeking 
the  nomination  of  his  party  for  governor  of  Ohio,  and  his 
chances  of  success  were  not  flattering  until  Burnside  caused 
him  to  be  arrested  for  alleged  treasonable  utterances  in 
a  speech  delivered  at  the  town  of  Mount  Vernon  on  the 
1st  day  of  May,  1863.  He  was  taken  out  of  his  bed  at 
Dayton  in  the  night  and  carried  to  Cincinnati,  put  in 
a  military  prison,  tried  by  a  military  commission,  found 
guilty,  and  sentenced  to  close  confinement  in  Fort  Warren 
during  the  continuance  of  the  war.  President  Lincoln 
commuted  his  sentence  to  banishment  to  the  Southern 
Confederacy.  He  was  accordingly  sent  across  the  army 
lines  and  handed  over  to  his  supposed  friends,  who  did  not, 
however,  receive  him  with  any  touching  marks  of  affec 
tion. 

Under  the  Act  of  Congress  approved  March  3,  1863,  it 
was  the  duty  of  the  Secretary  of  War  within  twenty  days 
to  report  the  arrest  of  Vallandigham  to  the  judge  of  the 
United  States  District  Court  for  southern  Ohio,  with  a 
statement  of  the  charges  against  him,  in  order  that  they 
might  be  laid  before  the  grand  jury,  and  if  an  indictment 
were  found  against  him,  to  bring  him  to  trial;  and  if  no 
indictment  were  found  during  that  term  of  court,  to  dis 
charge  him  from  confinement.  Any  officer,  civil  or  mili 
tary,  holding  a  prisoner  in  contravention  of  that  act  was 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  liable  to  a  fine  of  not  less  than 
five  hundred  dollars  and  to  imprisonment  in  the  common 
jail  not  less  than  six  months.  Accordingly,  all  the  pro- 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  205 

ceedings  in  the  case  of  Vallandigham  subsequent  to  his 
arrest  were  unwarranted  and  lawless.  The  arrest  itself 
was,  perhaps,  permissible  under  the  act,  because  the  Pres 
ident  had  the  right  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
When  Vallandigham  applied  for  the  writ,  Judge  Leavitt 
refused  it  on  that  ground.  The  refusal  of  the  writ,  how 
ever,  did  not  justify  the  later  proceedings. 

The  military  trial  of  Vallandigham  and  his  subsequent 
banishment  led  to  vehement  protests  from  Northern 
Democrats,  which,  in  the  light  of  the  present  day,  seem 
not  unreasonable.  President  Lincoln  replied  at  great 
length  and  on  the  whole  successfully  to  one  such  protest 
which  came  from  a  committee  of  citizens  of  New  York, 
of  which  Erastus  Corning  was  chairman.  He  did  not  fare 
so  well  in  a  later  controversy  with  a  committee  of  the 
Ohio  Democratic  State  Convention,  who  visited  the 
Executive  Mansion  and  submitted  their  protest  in  writing 
under  date  of  June  26.  In  this  communication  they  cov 
ered  the  same  ground  as  the  New  York  men  and  added 
these  words: 

And  finally,  the  charge  and  the  specifications  on  which  Mr. 
Vallandigham  was  tried  entitled  him  to  a  trial  before  the  civil 
tribunals  according  to  the  express  provisions  of  the  late  acts 
of  Congress  approved  by  yourself  July  17,  1862,  and  March 
3,  1863. 

Mr.  Lincoln  replied  to  everything  in  the  protest  of  the 
Ohio  men  except  this  paragraph.  His  failure  to  reply  on 
this  point  gave  them  the  opportunity  to  retort  that  his 
answer  was  "a  mere  evasion  of  the  grave  questions  in 
volved."  This  is  the  only  instance  in  Mr.  Lincoln's  con 
troversial  writings,  so  far  as  I  can  discover,  where  such  a 
retort  seems  justified.  The  correspondence  is  published  in 
Appleton's  Annual  Cyclopaedia,  1863. 

The  New  York  Tribune  deprecated,  in  no  querulous 


206  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

tone,  but  in  moderate  and  dignified  language,  the  entire 
proceedings  in  Vallandigham's  case,  and  deemed  them 
not  helpful  to  the  cause  of  the  Union,  but  the  contrary. 

Vallandigham  was  not  the  kind  of  man  to  win  public 
sympathy,  even  for  his  misfortunes.  Moreover,  his  trans 
ference  to  the  society  that  he  was  supposed  to  be  most 
fond  of  (as  an  alternative  to  close  confinement  in  Fort 
Warren)  had  a  flavor  of  jocularity  that  dulled  the  edge  of 
criticism;  but  his  strength  in  his  own  party  was  vastly 
augmented  by  these  proceedings.  He  was  nominated  for 
governor  by  acclamation,  and  would  probably  have  been 
elected  had  not  the  victories  at  Gettysburg  and  Vicks- 
burg,  two  months  later,  withdrawn  attention  from  him, 
inspired  the  Unionists  with  new  enthusiasm,  and  corres 
pondingly  depressed  their  opponents. 

Burnside,  finding  himself  sustained  by  his  superiors  in 
doctoring  Copperheadism  in  Ohio,  enlarged  the  scope  of 
his  practice.  On  the  1st  of  June  he  issued  an  order  for 
bidding  the  circulation  of  the  New  York  World  in  his 
department  and  stopping  the  publication  of  the  Chicago 
Times.  Brigadier-General  Ammen  was  charged  with  the 
execution  of  the  latter  order.  On  the  following  day, 
Ammen  notified  Wilbur  F.  Storey,  the  editor  of  the  Times, 
that  he  would  not  be  allowed  to  issue  his  paper  on  the 
3d  of  June.  Storey  appealed  to  the  United  States  District 
Court  for  protection.  Shortly  after  midnight  Judge 
Drummond  issued  a  writ  directing  the  military  authori 
ties  to  take  no  further  steps  under  Burnside's  order  to 
suppress  the  Times  until  the  application  for  a  permanent 
writ  of  injunction  could  be  heard  in  open  court.  The 
judge  said: 

I  may  be  pardoned  for  saying  that  personally  and  officially  I 
desire  to  give  every  aid  and  assistance  in  my  power  to  the  Gov 
ernment  and  the  Administration  in  restoring  the  Union,  but  I 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  207 

have  always  wished  to  treat  the  Government  as  a  government 
of  law  and  a  government  of  the  Constitution,  and  not  a  govern 
ment  of  mere  physical  force.  I  personally  have  contended  and 
shall  always  contend  for  the  right  of  free  discussion  and  the 
right  of  commenting  under  the  law  and  under  the  Constitution 
upon  the  acts  of  the  officers  of  the  Government. 

Notwithstanding  the  order  of  the  judge,  a  body  of 
troops  broke  into  the  office  of  the  Times  at  half -past  three 
o'clock  in  the  morning,  after  nearly  the  whole  edition  had 
been  printed,  and  took  possession  of  the  establishment. 
When  daylight  came  there  was  great  excitement  in  Chi 
cago.  Although  the  Times  was  a  Copperhead  sheet  of  an 
obnoxious  type,  many  loyal  citizens  were  convinced  that 
Burnside's  order  would  produce  vastly  more  harm  than 
good  to  the  Union  cause.  A  meeting  was  hastily  called 
at  the  circuit  court  room,  at  which  Senator  Trumbull  and 
Congressman  I.  N.  Arnold  were  present.  Hon.  William 
B.  Ogden,  ex-mayor,  president  of  the  Chicago  and  North 
western  Railway,  a  Republican  in  politics,  offered  for 
adoption  a  resolution  requesting  President  Lincoln  to 
suspend  or  rescind  Burnside's  order  suppressing  the 
Times.  The  resolution  was  adopted  unanimously  by  the 
meeting  and  a  petition  to  that  effect  was  drawn  up,  signed, 
and  sent  around  town  for  additional  signatures.  It  was 
then  telegraphed  to  the  President,  and  Trumbull  and 
Arnold  sent  an  additional  telegram  asking  that  it  might 
receive  his  prompt  attention. 

Outside  of  the  room,  however,  the  utmost  contrariety 
of  opinion  existed.  The  streets  were  filled  with  heated 
disputants,  and  there  was  danger  of  rioting  throughout 
the  day  following  the  suppression  of  the  newspaper.  In 
the  evening  of  June  3,  a  great  meeting  of  persons  opposed 
to  Burnside's  order  was  held  in  the  Court-House  Square, 
which  was  addressed  by  General  Singleton,  Moses  M. 


208  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Strong,  of  Wisconsin,  B.  G.  Caulfield,  and  E.  G.  Asay, 
Democrats,  and  by  Senator  Trumbull  and  Wirt  Dexter, 
Republicans. 

In  the  mean  time  Judge  Drummond  was  hearing  the 
arguments  of  Storey's  lawyers  on  the  question  of  making 
permanent  the  injunction  that  had  already  been  dis 
obeyed.  While  the  proceedings  were  going  on,  a  telegram 
came  from  Burnside  to  Ammen,  dated  Lexington,  Ken 
tucky,  June  4,  saying  that  his  order  for  the  suppression 
of  the  Chicago  Times  had  been  revoked  by  order  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States.  The  soldiers  were  accord 
ingly  withdrawn  and  Mr.  Storey  resumed  possession  of 
his  property. 

The  Chicago  Evening  Journal  published  the  following 
outline  of  Trumbull's  speech  on  this  event: 

The  point  of  Judge  Trumbull's  speech  was  to  show  the 
importance  of  adhering  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  in  all 
measures  adopted  for  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion.  He  con 
tended  that  they  furnished  ample  provisions  for  dealing  with 
traitors  in  our  midst;  that  the  Administration  and  its  friends 
were  weakened  by  resort  to  measures  of  doubtful  authority 
against  rebel  sympathizers  where  the  law  furnished  adequate 
remedies;  that  while  no  one  questioned  the  authority  of  mili 
tary  commanders  in  the  field  and  within  their  lines  where  the 
civil  authorities  were  overborne,  to  exercise  supreme  authority, 
the  right  to  do  this  in  the  loyal  portions  of  the  country,  where 
the  judicial  tribunals  were  in  full  operation,  was  very  question 
able.  He  held  that  by  its  exercise  in  such  localities  the  enemies 
of  the  country  were  given  a  great  advantage,  by  alleging  that 
their  constitutional  rights  and  privileges  were  arbitrarily  inter 
fered  with.  He  insisted  that  the  Constitution  and  laws  were 
supreme  in  war  as  well  as  in  peace,  and  that  the  denial  of 
this  proposition  was  an  acknowledgment  that  the  people  were 
incapable  of  self-government  —  an  admission  that  constitu 
tional  liberty  and  the  rights  of  the  citizen,  guaranteed  by  fun 
damental  laws,  were  of  no  value  except  in  peaceful  times,  so 
that  in  tumultuous  times  personal  liberty  regulated  by  law,  to 


ARBITRARY  ARRESTS  209 

establish  which  the  Anglo-Saxon  race  had  been  contending  for 
centuries,  must  give  way  to  the  discretion  of  any  man  who 
might  happen  at  the  time  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  Govern 
ment  ;  that  this,  the  American  people  are  not  prepared  to 
admit,  nor  was  it  necessary  they  should;  that  the  right  of  free 
speech  and  a  free  election  should  never  be  surrendered;  but 
that  this  freedom  did  not  imply  the  right,  in  time  of  civil  war, 
to  give  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemies  of  the  country,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  against  which  the  laws  made  ample 
provision. 

The  legislature  of  Illinois  was  then  in  session  and  both 
houses  passed  resolutions  condemning  the  action  of  the 
military  authorities  in  suppressing  the  Chicago  Times.1 

1  The  New  York  Tribune,  June  6,  said:  "We  trust  the  great  majority  of 
considerate  and  loyal  citizens  share  the  relief  and  satisfaction  we  feel  in  view  of 
the  President's  course  in  revoking  the  order  of  General  Burnside  which  directs 
the  suppression  of  the  Chicago  Times.  And  we  further  trust  that  the  zealous 
and  impulsive  minority,  who  would  have  had  General  Burnside's  order  sus 
tained,  will,  on  calm  reflection,  realize  and  admit  that  the  President  has  taken 
the  wiser  and  safer  course.  We  cannot  reconcile  the  decision  of  the  Executive 
in  this  case  with  his  action  in  regard  to  Vallandigham.  Journalists  have  no 
special  license  to  commit  treason,  and  Vallandigham 's  sympathy  with  the 
rebels  was  neither  more  audacious  nor  more  mischievous  than  that  of  the  Times. 
Yet  it  is  better  to  be  inconsistently  right  than  consistently  wrong  —  better  to 
be  right  to-day,  though  wrong  yesterday,  than  to  be  wrong  both  days  alike." 


CHAPTER  XIII 

INCIDENTS  OF  THE   YEARS    1863   AND  1864 

JAMES  W.  WHITE,  of  New  York  City,  writes,  March  6, 
to  ask  Trumbull,  as  a  member  of  the  Seward  Committee, 
whether  it  is  a  fact  that  President  Lincoln  had  knowledge 
of  the  dispatches  written  by  Secretary  Seward  to  Minister 
Adams,  dated  April  10,  1861,  and  July  5,  1862,  before 
they  were  sent,  and  whether  he  approved  the  same. 

This  refers  to  an  event  which  very  nearly  upset  Presi 
dent  Lincoln's  Cabinet  in  the  beginning  of  1863.  Secre 
tary  Seward  had  entered  the  Cabinet  under  strong  sus 
picions  of  lukewarmness  toward  the  war  policy  of  the 
President,  which  suspicions  were  shared  by  the  Republi 
can  Senators  generally.  Consequently  they  were  prepared 
to  believe  that  the  want  of  success  which  attended  the 
Union  arms  was  due  to  a  lack  of  earnestness  at  headquar 
ters,  and  that  the  man  who  paralyzed  Lincoln  was  the  Sec 
retary  of  State.  While  this  feeling  was  rankling  in  many 
bosoms,  and  especially  among  those  who  had  considered 
the  Executive  remiss  in  dealing  with  the  slavery  question, 
the  official  correspondence  of  the  State  Department  of  the 
preceding  year  came  from  the  press,  containing,  among 
other  letters,  one  from  Seward  to  Minister  Adams  dated 
July  5,  1862,  with  the  following  words: 

It  seems  as  if  the  extreme  advocates  of  African  slavery  and 
its  most  vehement  opponents  were  acting  in  concert  together 
to  precipitate  a  servile  war  —  the  former  by  making  the  most 
desperate  attempts  to  overthrow  the  Federal  Union,  the  latter 
by  demanding  an  edict  of  universal  emancipation  as  a  lawful 
and  necessary,  if  not,  as  they  say,  the  only  legitimate  way  of 
saving  the  Union. 


INCIDENTS  OF  1863  AND   1864  211 

Probably  this  was  a  private  note,  which  got  into  the 
published  volume  by  mistake,  but  it  was  oil  on  the  flames 
in  1863,  and  it  became  public  simultaneously  with  the 
news  of  General  Burnside's  defeat  at  Fredericksburg. 
These  were  among  the  darkest  hours  of  the  war.  The 
Republican  Senators  thought  that  the  rebellion  would 
never  be  put  down  unless  Seward  were  forced  out  of  the 
Cabinet  and  that  now  was  the  time  to  act.  A  caucus 
was  held  and  a  committee  appointed,  of  which  Senator 
Collamer  was  chairman,  to  visit  the  President  and  express 
the  opinion  that  Mr.  Seward  had  lost  the  confidence  of 
Congress  and  the  country,  and  that  his  resignation  was 
necessary  to  a  successful  prosecution  of  the  war.  Trum- 
bull  was  one  of  the  members  of  the  committee. 

Seward's  unlucky  letter,  which  formed  the  occasion  of 
Judge  White's  communication  to  Trumbull,  was  written 
shortly  before  Lincoln's  preliminary  proclamation  of 
emancipation  as  to  slaves  in  the  rebel  states  was  published. 
Senator  Sumner  took  the  letter  to  the  President  and  asked 
if  he  had  ever  given  his  sanction  to  it.  He  replied  that  he 
had  never  seen  it  before.  The  newspapers  got  hold  of  this 
fact  and  made  it  hot  for  Seward.  The  New  York  Times, 
nowever,  denied,  apparently  by  authority,  that  Seward 
had  ever  sent  any  dispatch  to  a  foreign  minister  without 
first  submitting  it  to  the  President  and  getting  his  ap 
proval  of  it.  Such  a  denial  would  be  technically  correct 
if  this  letter  were  a  private  communication,  not  intended 
for  the  public  archives.  Judge  White,  in  a  public  letter, 
maintained  that  Seward  never  had  submitted  this  letter 
to  his  chief,  thus  raising  a  question  of  veracity  with  the 
Times.  So  he  wrote  the  foregoing  letter  to  Trumbull 
hoping  to  find  a  backer  in  him.  Trumbull  replied  in  the 
following  terms: 

Pressing  engagements  and  an  indisposition  to  become  in- 


212  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

volved  in  the  controversy  to  which  your  letter  of  the  6th  alludes 
must  be  my  apology  for  not  sooner  replying  to  your  inquiries. 
The  want  of  harmony,  not  to  say  the  antagonism,  between 
some  of  the  dispatches  referred  to  and  the  avowed  policy  of 
the  President  would  seem  to  afford  sufficient  evidence  to  a  dis 
cerning  public  that  both  could  not  have  emanated  from  the 
same  mind.  In  view,  therefore,  of  the  manner  in  which  the 
information  in  my  possession  was  obtained,  and  not  perceiving 
at  this  time  that  the  public  good  would  be  subserved  by  any 
disclosure  I  could  make,  I  must  be  excused  for  not  undertak 
ing  to  furnish  extraneous  evidence  in  the  matter. 

The  accusations  of  the  senatorial  committee  against 
Seward  were  summarized  by  Lincoln  truthfully  and 
with  a  touch  of  humor.  "While  they  seemed  to  believe 
in  my  honesty,"  he  said,  "  they  also  appeared  to  think 
that  whenever  I  had  in  me  any  good  purpose  Seward 
contrived  to  suck  it  out  unperceived."  Seward  was  no 
more  to  blame  for  the  ill  success  of  the  Union  armies  than 
any  other  member  of  the  Cabinet.  The  inefficiency  in 
our  armies,  according  to  Gideon  Welles,  resided  in  the 
President's  chief  military  adviser,  General  Halleck. 
However  that  may  have  been,  it  is  well  that  the  errand 
of  the  Republican  Senators  to  the  White  House  proved 
fruitless,  since,  if  successful,  it  might  have  created  a  pre 
cedent  which  would  have  upset  our  form  of  government. 

G.  Koerner,  Minister  to  Spain,  writes  from  Madrid, 
March  22,  1863,  that  he  is  very  much  discouraged  about 
the  prospects  of  the  war.  He  trusts  more  to  the  exhaus 
tion  of  the  South  than  to  the  victories  of  the  North. 

My  situation,  under  the  circumstances,  has  been  a  very 
unpleasant  one.  For  days  and  weeks  I  have  avoided  meetings 
and  reunions  where  I  would  have  had  to  answer  questions, 
often  meant  in  a  very  friendly  manner,  but  still  embarrassing 
to  me.  My  family  has  also  lived  very  retired,  for  the  additional 
reason  that  we  are  not  able  to  return  the  many  hospitalities  to 
which  we  are  invited  constantly.  We  have  the  greatest  trouble 


INCIDENTS  OF  1863  AND   1864  213 

in  the  world  to  live  here  in  the  most  modest  manner  within  our 
means.  We  forego  many,  very  many,  of  the  comforts  we  were 
accustomed  to  at  home. 

From  Columbus,  Georgia,  October  26,  1863,  Alfred 
Iverson  (former  Senator) ,  trusting  that  the  difficulties  in 
which  the  two  sections  are  involved  may  not  have  extin 
guished  the  feelings  of  courtesy  and  humanity  in  the 
hearts  of  individual  gentlemen,  writes,  at  the  instance  of 
an  anxious  mother,  to  make  inquiries  in  reference  to 
Charles  G.  Flournoy,  supposed  to  have  been  captured 
with  other  Confederate  soldiers  by  General  Grant's  forces 
in  the  vicinity  of  Vicksburg,  and  to  be  confined  in  a  mili 
tary  prison  at  Alton,  Illinois. 

Walter  B.  Scates  (former  judge  of  the  supreme  court  of 
Illinois,  Democrat,  now  serving  as  assistant  adjutant- 
general  in  the  Thirteenth  Army  Corps)  writes  from  New 
Orleans,  November  14,  1863,  that  he  is  thoroughly  con 
vinced  of  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  destroying 
slavery  as  a  means  of  ending  this  most  wicked  war  and 
preventing  a  recurrence  of  a  like  misfortune;  is  ready  to 
take  an  active  part  in  the  organization  of  colored  regi 
ments,  that  they  may  assist  in  maintaining  the  Govern 
ment  and  winning  their  own  freedom. 

From  Topeka,  Kansas,  November  16,  John  T.  Morton 
remonstrates  against  the  appointment  of  M.  W.  Delahay 
as  judge  of  the  United  States  District  Court,  because  he  is 
utterly  incompetent.  Says  he  gave  up  the  practice  of  his 
profession  in  Illinois  because  he  was  so  ignorant  that  no 
body  would  employ  him.  O.  M.  Hatch  confirms  Morton; 
says  the  appointment  is  unfit  to  be  made;  has  known 
Delahay  personally  for  twenty  years.  Jesse  K.  Dubois 
and  D.  L.  Phillips  confirm  Hatch. 

Jackson  Grimshaw  writes  from  Quincy ,  December  3 : 

Will  the  Senate  confirm  that  miserable  man  Delahay  for 


214  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Judge  in  Kansas?  The  appointment  is  disgraceful  to  the  Presi 
dent,  who  knew  Delahay  and  all  his  faults,  but  the  disgrace 
to  the  Administration  will  be  greater  if  the  Senate  confirms 
him.  He  is  no  lawyer,  could  not  try  a  case  properly  even  in 
a  Justice's  court  and  has  no  character.  Mr.  Buchanan  in  his 
worst  days  never  made  so  disgraceful  an  appointment  to  the 
bench. 

Herndon  relates  that  Delahay 's  expenses  to  the  Chicago 
nominating  convention,  as  an  expected  delegate  from  Kan 
sas,  were  promised  by  Lincoln.  He  was  not  a  delegate 
and  never  had  the  remotest  chance  of  being  one,  but  he 
came  as  a  "hustler"  and  Lincoln  paid  his  expenses  all 
the  same.  He  was  nevertheless  appointed  judge,  was  im 
peached  by  Congress  in  1872  under  charges  of  incom- 
petency,  corruption,  and  drunkenness  on  and  off  the 
bench,  and  resigned  while  the  impeachment  committee 
was  taking  testimony. 

Major-General  John  M.  Palmer  writes  from  Chatta 
nooga,  December  18,  1863: 

The  Illinois  troops  (now  voters)  are  beginning  to  talk  about  the 
Presidency.  Mr.  Lincoln  is  by  far  the  strongest  man  with  the 
army,  and  no  combination  could  be  made  which  would  impair 
his  strength  with  this  army  unless,  perhaps,  Grant's  candidacy 
would.  The  people  of  Tennessee  would  now  vote  for  Lincoln, 
it  is  thought  by  many.  Andy  Johnson  is  understood  to  be  a 
Presidential  aspirant  by  most  people  in  this  state.  He  is  not  as 
popular  as  I  once  thought  he  was,  though  if  he  will  exert  himself 
to  do  so  he  can  be  Governor,  or  Senator,  when  the  state  is  reor 
ganized.  He  is  understood  to  favor  emancipation,  and  the  peo 
ple  are  prepared  for  it,  but  I  fear  personal  questions  will  com 
plicate  the  matter.  The  truth  is  all  these  Southern  politicians 
are  behind  the  times  sadly.  There  is  nothing  practical  about 
them.  Now,  when  the  whole  social  and  political  fabric  is 
broken  up,  new  foundations  might  be  laid  for  institutions  which 
would  in  their  effects  within  twenty  years  compensate  the  State 
for  all  its  losses,  heavy  as  they  are.  But  not  much  will  be  done, 
I  fear,  because  the  politicians  don't  seem  to  know  what  is 


INCIDENTS  OF  1863  AND   1864  215 

required.  One  fourth  of  the  people  are  destitute,  and  yet  the 
leaders  have  not  humanity  and  energy  enough  to  induce  them 
to  organize  for  mutual  assistance.  There  are  farms  enough  in 
middle  Tennessee  deserted  by  their  rebel  owners  to  give  tem 
porary  homes  to  thousands,  and  yet  no  one  will  take  the  respon 
sibility  of  putting  them  in  possession,  but  the  leaders  quietly 
suffer  the  poor  to  wander  homeless  all  over  the  country. 

Colonel  Fred  Hecker  writes  from  Lookout  Valley,  Ten 
nessee,  December  21 : 

Again  we  are  encamped  in  Lookout  Valley  after  heavy  fight 
ing  and  marching  from  November  22  to  December  16,  stopping 
a  victorious  march  at  the  gates  of  Knoxville,  returning  with 
barefooted,  ragged  men,  but  cheerful  hearts.  This  was  more 
than  a  fight.  It  was  a  wild  chase  after  an  enemy  making  no 
stand,  leaving  everywhere  in  our  hands,  muskets,  cannon, 
ammunition,  provisions,  stores,  etc.,  and  large  numbers  of 
prisoners.  These,  as  well  as  the  populations,  were  unanimous 
in  declaring  that  the  people  of  the  South  are  tired  of  the  war 
and  rebellion  and  are  in  earnest  in  the  desire  for  peace  and 
order.  I  conversed  much  with  men  of  different  positions  in  life, 
education,  and  political  parties,  from  the  enraged  secessionist 
to  the  unwavering  Union  man  just  returning  from  his  hiding- 
place,  and  I  am  fully  convinced  that  most  of  the  work  is  done. 
A  great  many  had  no  idea  what  war  was  till  both  armies,  pass 
ing  over  the  country,  had  taught  them  the  lesson,  and  there 
is  such  a  prevailing  union  feeling  in  North  Carolina,  northern 
Alabama,  and  Georgia,  as  I  have  ascertained  in  a  hundred  con 
versations  with  men  of  that  section  of  the  country,  that  the 
result  of  the  next  campaign  is  not  the  least  doubtful.  You 
remember  what  I  told  you  about  General  Grant  at  a  time  when 
this  excellent  man  was  pursued  by  malice  and  slander.  I  feel 
greatly  satisfied  that  his  enemies  are  now  forced  to  do  him 
justice.  The  battle  of  Chattanooga,  with  all  its  great  conse 
quences,  was  a  masterpiece  of  planning  and  manoeuvring,  and 
every  man  of  us  is  proud  to  have  been  an  actor  in  this  ever 
memorable  action.  Revolution  and  war  sift  men  and  con 
sume  reputations  with  the  voracity  of  Kronos,  and  it  is  good 
that  it  is  so. 


216  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

From  Chattanooga,  January  24,  1864,  Major-General 
John  M.  Palmer  writes: 

I  saw  Grant  yesterday  and  had  a  conversation  with  him. 
Peace-at-any-price  men  would  have  a  hard  bargain  in  him  as 
their  candidate.  He  is  a  soldier  and,  of  course,  regards  negroes 
at  their  value  as  military  materials.  He  has  just  enough  senti 
ment  and  humanity  about  him  to  make  him  a  careful  general, 
and  he  esteems  men,  black  or  white,  as  too  valuable  to  be 
wasted.  He  does  not  desire  to  be  a  candidate  for  the  Presi 
dency;  prefers  his  present  theatre  of  service  to  any  other.  Nor 
will  the  officers  of  the  army  willingly  give  him  up.  He  has  no 
enemies,  and  it  is  very  difficult  to  understand  how  he  can  have 
any.  He  is  honest,  brave,  frank,  and  modest.  Is  perfectly  will 
ing  that  his  subordinates  shall  win  all  the  reputation  and  glory 
possible;  will  help  them  when  he  can,  with  the  most  unselfish 
earnestness.  He  demands  no  adulation,  and  gives  credit  for 
every  honest  effort,  and  if  efforts  are  unsuccessful  he  has  the 
sense,  and  the  sense  of  justice,  to  understand  the  reasons  for 
failure  and  to  attach  to  them  their  proper  importance.  Nobody 
is  jealous  of  Grant  and  he  is  jealous  of  no  one.  He  is  not  a  great 
man.  He  is  precisely  equal  to  his  situation.  His  success  has 
been  wonderful  and  must  be  attributed,  I  think,  to  his  fine 
common  sense  and  the  faculty  he  possesses  in  a  wonderful 
degree  of  making  himself  understood.  I  do  not  think  he  will 
be  anybody's  candidate  for  the  Presidency  this  time,  but  after 
that  his  stock  will  be  at  a  premium  for  anything  he  wants.  Mr. 
Lincoln  is  popular  with  the  army,  and  will,  as  far  as  the  soldiers 
can  vote,  beat  anything  the  Copperheads  can  start.  No  civil 
ian  or  mere  book-making  general  can  get  votes  in  the  army 
against  him. 

J.  K.  Dubois,  Springfield,  January  30,  says: 

We  are  receiving  daily  old  regiments  who  are  reenlisting  and 
are  sent  home  on  furlough  for  thirty  days  to  see  their  friends 
and  recruit.  This  is  very  damaging  to  the  Copperhead  crew  of 
our  state.  They  swear  and  groan  over  this  fact,  for  they  have 
preached  and  affirmed  that  the  soldiers  were  held  in  subjection 
by  their  officers,  and  that  as  soon  as  their  time  was  up  they 
would  show  their  officers  and  the  President  that  they  would 


INCIDENTS  OF  1863  AND   1864  217 

have  nothing  more  to  do  with  this  Abolition  crusade.  And  so 
when  these  same  men's  time  will  have  expired,  commencing 
next  June,  they  say  to  rebels  both  front  and  rear:  "We  were  at 
the  beginning  of  this  fight  and  we  intend  also  to  be  at  the  end." 
All  honor  to  these  brave  and  loyal  men. 

Israel  B.  Bigelow,  Brownsville,  Texas,  May  5,  1864, 
says  that  before  the  war  it  was  commonly  said  that  soil 
and  climate  would  regulate  slavery. 

In  theory  this  was  right  if  slavery  was  right,  and  whether 
right  or  wrong,  slavery  is  declining,  and  with  my  very  hearty  con 
currence  —  to  my  own  astonishment.  No  man  ever  regarded 
a  Massachusetts  Abolitionist  with  greater  abhorrence  than 
myself,  and  yet  I  have  subscribed  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  ironclad 
oath.  Time  works  wondrous  changes  in  men's  feelings,  and 
there  are  thousands  of  slaveholders  in  this  state  who,  two  years 
ago,  cursed  Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  Government,  who  are  now  will 
ing  to  have  their  slaves  freed  if  the  war  can  be  brought  to  an 
end. 

We  now  come  upon  the  first  evidence  of  any  difference, 
of  a  personal  kind,  existing  between  Senator  Trumbull  and 
President  Lincoln.  Opposing  views  on  questions  of  public 
policy,  such  as  the  Confiscation  Bill  and  arbitrary  arrests, 
have  already  been  noted.  A  difference  of  another  kind  is 
disclosed  in  a  letter  from  N.  B.  Judd,  Minister  to  Prussia. 
Judd  had  returned  to  his  post  after  a  visit  to  this  country. 
He  wrote  to  Trumbull  under  date,  Berlin,  January,  1864: 

When  I  last  saw  you  your  conviction  was  that  L.  would  be 
reflected.  I  tell  you  combinations  can't  prevent  it.  Events 
possibly  may.  But  until  some  event  occurs,  is  it  wise  or  pru 
dent  to  give  an  impression  of  hostility  for  no  earthly  good?  Usu 
ally  your  judgment  controls  your  feelings.  Don't  let  the  case  be 
reversed  now.  Although  a  severe  thinker  you  are  not  consti 
tutionally  a  croaker.  Excuse  the  freedom  of  my  writing.  I 
have  given  you  proofs  that  I  am  no  holiday  friend  of  yours. 

The  next  piece  of  evidence  found  is  a  letter  from  Trum- 


218  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

bull  himself  to  H.  G.  McPike,  of  Alton,  Illinois,  one  of 
the  few  letters  of  which  he  kept  a  copy  in  his  own  hand 
writing  : 

WASHINGTON,  Feb.  6,  1864. 

The  feeling  for  Mr.  Lincoln's  reelection  seems  to  be  very  gen 
eral,  but  much  of  it  I  discover  is  only  on  the  surface.  You 
would  be  surprised,  in  talking  with  public  men  we  meet  here, 
to  find  how  few,  when  you  come  to  get  at  their  real  sentiments, 
are  for  Mr.  Lincoln's  reelection.  There  is  a  distrust  and  fear 
that  he  is  too  undecided  and  inefficient  to  put  down  the  rebel 
lion.  You  need  not  be  surprised  if  a  reaction  sets  in  before  the 
nomination,  in  favor  of  some  man  supposed  to  possess  more 
energy  and  less  inclination  to  trust  our  brave  boys  in  the  hands 
and  under  the  leadership  of  generals  who  have  no  heart  in  the 
war.  The  opposition  to  Mr.  L.  may  not  show  itself  at  all,  but  if 
it  ever  breaks  out  there  will  be  more  of  it  than  now  appears. 
Congress  will  do  its  duty,  and  it  is  not  improbable  we  may  pass 
a  resolution  to  amend  the  Constitution  so  as  to  abolish  slavery 
forever  throughout  the  United  States. 

The  third  scrap  is  a  letter  from  Governor  Yates  to 
Trumbull  dated  Springfield,  February  26,  to  whom,  per 
haps,  McPike  showed  TrumbuH's  letter  quoted  above. 
Yates  writes: 

As  you  are  a  Senator  from  Illinois,  the  state  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
please  be  cautious  as  to  your  course  till  I  see  you.  I  have  such 
strong  regard  for  you  personally  that  I  do  not  wish  either  ene 
mies  or  friends  on  our  side,  who  would  like  to  supplant  you,  to 
get  any  undue  advantage  over  you. 

Trumbull  believed  there  was  a  lack  of  efficiency  in  the 
use  made,  by  the  executive  branch  of  the  Government,  of 
the  means  placed  at  its  disposal  for  putting  down  the 
rebellion.  That  such  was  his  opinion  was  made  clear  by 
his  participation  in  the  anti-Seward  movements  of  the 
previous  year.  Whether  the  opinion  was  justified  or  not, 
it  was  so  generally  entertained  in  Washington  that  if  the 
nomination  had  rested  in  the  hands  of  the  Senators  and 


INCIDENTS  OF  1863  AND   1864  219 

Representatives  in  Congress,  Lincoln  would  have  had 
very  few  votes  in  the  Baltimore  Convention.  Albert  G. 
Riddle  describes  a  scene  in  the  White  House  in  February, 
1864,  illustrative  of  public  sentiment  in  Washington  at 
that  time.  The  reception  room  of  the  Executive  Mansion 
was  filled  with  persons,  most  of  whom  were  inveighing 
against  Lincoln,  who  was  not  present.  The  one  most  loud 
and  bitter  against  the  President  was  Henry  Wilson,  of 
Massachusetts.  His  assaults  were  so  amazing  that  Riddle 
cautioned  him  to  choose  some  other  place  than  the 
Executive  Mansion  for  uttering  them;  advised  him  to 
make  his  speeches  in  the  Senate,  or  get  himself  elected 
to  the  coming  National  Union  Convention  and  then  de 
nounce  Lincoln,  where  his  words  might  have  some  effect. 
Wilson  replied  that  he  knew  the  people  were  for  Lincoln 
and  that  nothing  could  prevent  his  renomination.1 

The  opposition  was  based  wholly  upon  charges  of 
inefficiency  and  lack  of  earnestness  and  vigor  in  the  prose 
cution  of  the  war.  But  the  feeling,  both  among  the  people 
at  home  and  the  soldiers  in  the  field,  was  so  overwhelm 
ingly  for  Lincoln,  that  when  the  delegates  came  together 
in  convention  the  opposition  in  Congress  was  silenced. 
After  the  nominations  of  both  parties  had  been  made, 
however,  the  previous  distrust  reappeared  on  a  larger 
scale  and  became  so  pronounced  that  Lincoln  himself 
thought  that  he  was  about  to  be  defeated  and  took  steps 
to  turn  the  Government  over  to  McClellan  practically 
before  the  constitutional  period  for  his  own  retirement.2 
If  Lincoln  himself  was  in  despair,  other  persons  who  shared 
his  gloom  might  be  excused. 

The  radicals  who  were  opposed  to  Lincoln  held  a  con 
vention  in  the  city  of  Cleveland  on  the  3 1st  of  May,  1864, 

1  Riddle's  Recollections  of  War-Time,  p.  267. 

2  Nicolay  &  Hay,  ix.  251. 


220  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

and  nominated  General  John  C.  Fremont  for  President 
and  General  John  Cochrane  for  Vice-President .  Among 
the  leaders  in  this  movement  were  B.  Gratz  Brown,  of 
Missouri,  Wendell  Phillips,  of  Massachusetts,  and  Rev. 
George  B.  Cheever,  of  New  York.  They  had  the  sympa 
thy  of  Ben  Wade,  of  Ohio,  and  Henry  Winter  Davis,  of 
Maryland,  and  they  reckoned  upon  the  support  of  many 
radical  Germans  of  the  fiery  type,  perhaps  sufficiently 
numerous  to  turn  the  votes  of  some  important  Western 
States.  On  the  21st  of  September,  Fremont  withdrew  as 
a  candidate  and  on  the  23d  the  President  asked  for  the 
resignation  of  Montgomery  Blair  as  Postmaster-General, 
which  the  latter  immediately  gave.  The  simultaneous 
retirement  of  Fremont  and  Blair,  who  were  known  to  be 
enemies  to  each  other,  led  to  a  suspicion  that  there  was 
some  connection  between  the  two  events.  The  account 
given  by  Nicolay  and  Hay  conveys  no  hint  of  this,  but 
is  confused  and  self -contradictory.  Evidence  is  available 
to  indicate  that  Fremont  made  his  retirement  conditional 
upon  the  removal  of  Blair  from  the  Cabinet,  and  that  Lin 
coln,  although  reluctant  to  lose  Blair  from  his  official 
family,  deemed  it  a  necessity  to  get  the  third  ticket  out  of 
the  presidential  contest,  for  public  reasons.1 

In  the  Senatorial  contest  of  1867  the  false  accusation 
was  made  that  Trumbull  had  refused  to  make  speeches 
in  favor  of  Lincoln's  reelection;  whereas  he  was  the  lead 
ing  speaker  at  the  great  Union  Mass  Meeting  at  Spring 
field  on  the  5th  of  October,  1864,  which  was  addressed 
by  Doolittle,  Yates,  and  Logan  also.  His  correspondence 

1  A  letter  dated  August  9, 1910,  in  my  possession,  from  Mr.  Gist  Blair,  son  of 
Montgomery  Blair,  says:  "I  have  always  understood  that  my  father  retired 
from  Mr.  Lincoln's  Cabinet  in  order  to  secure  the  withdrawal  of  Fremont  as  a 
candidate  against  Mr.  Lincoln.  There  are  letters  which  I  cannot  now  put  my 
hand  on,  which  indicate  that  Mr.  Lincoln  continued  to  consult  my  father  prac 
tically  the  same  as  if  he  were  a  member  of  the  Cabinet,  up  to  the  time  of 
Mr.  Lincoln's  death." 


INCIDENTS  OF  1863  AND   1864  221 

shows  that  he  spoke  at  several  other  places  during  that 
month. 

But  speech-making  did  not  gain  the  victory  in  the 
election  of  1864.  That  fight  was  won  by  General  Sherman 
at  Atlanta,  aided  by  General  Sheridan  in  the  Valley  of 
Virginia,  and  by  Admiral  Farragut  at  Mobile. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE   THIRTEENTH  AMENDMENT   TO   THE   CONSTITUTION 

DONN  PIATT,  meeting  William  H.  Seward  on  the  street 
on  the  morning  immediately  after  the  issuing  of  the  pre 
liminary  proclamation  of  emancipation,  complimented 
him  for  his  share  in  the  act,  whereupon  the  following  col 
loquy  ensued: 

" Yes,"  said  Seward,  "we  have  let  off  a  puff  of  wind 
over  an  accomplished  fact." 

"What  do  you  mean,  Mr.  Seward?" 

"I  mean  that  the  emancipation  proclamation  was  ut 
tered  in  the  first  gun  fired  at  Sumter  and  we  have  been 
the  last  to  hear  it.  As  it  is,  we  show  our  sympathy  with 
slavery  by  emancipating  slaves  where  we  cannot  reach 
them  and  holding  them  in  bondage  where  we  can  set  them 
free."  1 

Seward  did  not  say  this  in  a  censorious  spirit,  but  what 
he  did  say  was  true.  The  proclamation  applied  only  to 
states  and  parts  of  states  under  rebel  control.  It  did  not 
emancipate  any  slaves  within  the  emancipator's  reach. 
Whether  it  freed  anybody  anywhere  was  a  matter  of  dis 
pute.  What  its  legal  effect  would  be  after  the  war  should 
cease,  no  one  could  say.  Moreover,  if  the  President  had 
legal  authority  to  issue  the  proclamation,  then  he,  or  a 
successor  in  office,  could  revoke  it. 

The  Constitution  had  not  given  to  the  Federal  Govern 
ment  power  to  emancipate  slaves.  The  proclamation  did 
not  purport  to  rest  upon  any  constitutional  power,  but 
upon  war  powers  solely.  But  war  powers  last  only  while 

1  Memories  of  Men  who  Saved  the  Union,  by  Donn  Piatt,  p.  150. 


THE  THIRTEENTH  AMENDMENT  223 

war  lasts,  and  when  it  comes  to  an  end,  all  sorts  of  people 
have  all  sorts  of  opinions  as  to  the  validity  of  acts  done 
under  them. 

Public  opinion  at  the  time  was  keenly  alive  to  doubts 
regarding  the  President's  powers  in  this  particular.  Con 
gress  was  flooded  with  petitions  calling  for  action  to  con 
firm  and  validate  the  proclamation,  but  the  way  was  beset 
with  difficulties.  Should  the  Constitution  be  amended,  or 
would  an  act  of  Congress  suffice  ?  If  the  Constitution 
should  be  amended,  should  it  abolish  slavery  everywhere 
or  only  in  the  places  designated  by  the  President?  Should 
loyal  slave-owners  be  compensated,  as  Lincoln  desired? 
What  were  the  chances  of  getting  such  an  amendment 
ratified  by  three  fourths  of  the  states?  And  for  this  pur 
pose  should  the  rebel  states  be  counted  as  still  in  the 
Union?  If  so,  the  requisite  number  might  not  be 
obtained. 

The  first  resolution  offered  in  Congress  for  such  an 
amendment  of  the  Constitution  was  proposed  in  the 
House  on  the  14th  of  December,  1863,  by  Representative 
James  F.  Wilson  of  Iowa,  in  these  words: 

SECTION  1.  Slavery  being  incompatible  with  a  free  govern 
ment  is  forever  prohibited  in  the  United  States ;  and  invol 
untary  servitude  shall  be  permitted  only  as  a  punishment  for 
crime. 

SECTION  2.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  the  forego 
ing  section  by  appropriate  legislation. 

On  the  13th  of  January,  1864,  Senator  Henderson,  of 
Missouri,  offered  a  resolution  to  amend  the  Constitution 
by  adding  thereto  the  following  article: 

Slavery  or  involuntary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment 
for  crime,  shall  not  exist  in  the  United  States. 

These  resolutions  were  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Com 
mittees  of  the  respective  houses. 


224  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

On  the  10th  of  February,  Trumbull  reported  the  Hen 
derson  Resolution  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
with  an  amendment  in  the  nature  of  a  substitute  in  the 
following  terms : 

ARTICLE  XIII 

SECTION  1.  Neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude, 
except  as  a  punishment  for  crime  whereof  the  party  shall  have 
been  duly  convicted,  shall  exist  within  the  United  States  or  any 
place  subject  to  their  jurisdiction. 

SECTION  2.  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this  article 
by  appropriate  legislation. 

The  phraseology  followed  pretty  closely  that  of  the  Ordi 
nance  of  1787.  Trumbull  adopted  it  because  it  was  among 
the  household  words  of  the  nation.  To  become  effective 
as  a  part  of  the  Constitution,  this  article  required  the 
votes  of  two  thirds  of  each  branch  of  Congress  and  ratifi 
cation  by  the  legislatures  of  three  fourths  of  the  States. 
Presenting  the  resolution  to  the  Senate,  Trumbull  said 
that  nobody  could  doubt  that  the  conflict  then  raging, 
and  all  the  desolation  and  death  consequent  thereon,  had 
their  origin  in  the  institution  of  slavery;  that  even  those 
who  contended  that  the  trouble  was  due  to  the  agitators 
and  abolitionists  of  the  North  must  admit  that  if  there 
were  no  slavery  there  would  be  no  abolitionists.  So  also  it 
must  be  admitted  that  if  there  had  been  no  slavery  there 
would  have  been  no  secession  and  no  civil  war.  All  the 
strife  that  had  ever  afflicted  the  nation,  or  all  that  could 
be  considered  menacing  to  the  country's  peace,  had  had 
its  source  in  that  institution.  Various  laws  had  been  passed 
by  Congress  to  give  freedom  to  slaves  of  rebel  owners  and 
even  these  laws  had  not  been  executed  properly.  The 
President  of  the  United  States  had  issued  a  preliminary 
proclamation  in  September,  1862,  and  a  final  one  in  Janu 
ary,  1863,  declaring  all  slaves  under  rebel  control  free, 


THE  THIRTEENTH  AMENDMENT  225 

but  not  those  under  our  control.  The  legal  effect  of  such  a 
proclamation  had  been  a  matter  of  dispute.  Some  persons 
held  that  the  President  had  the  constitutional  power  to 
issue  it  and  that  all  the  slaves  designated  were  free,  or 
would  become  so  whenever  the  rebellion  should  be  crushed ; 
while  others  contended  that  it  had  no  effect  either  dejure 
or  de  facto.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  lawmaking  power  to 
put  an  end  to  this  uncertainty  by  some  act'more  compre 
hensive  than  any  that  had  yet  been  adopted.  Would  a 
mere  act  of  Congress  suffice?  It  had  been  an  axiom  of  all 
parties  from  the  beginning  of  the  Government  that  Con 
gress  had  no  authority  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the 
states  where  it  existed.  We  had  authority,  of  course,  to 
put  down  the  enemies  of  the  country  and  the  right  to  slay 
them  in  battle;  we  had  authority  to  confiscate  their  prop 
erty  ;  but  did  that  give  us  authority  to  slay  the  friends 
of  the  Union,  to  confiscate  their  property,  or  to  free  their 
slaves?  In  his  opinion  the  only  conclusive  and  irrepeal- 
able  way  to  make  an  end  of  slavery  was  by  an  amend 
ment  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  only  practical  question 
remaining  was  whether  the  resolution  recommended  by 
the  committee  could  secure  a  two-thirds  vote  in  Congress 
and  the  concurrence  of  three  fourths  of  the  states.  There 
were  thirty-five  states,  including  those  in  rebellion,  and 
two  territories  about  to  become  states.  Presumably  the 
affirmative  votes  of  twenty -eight  states  would  be  required 
for  ratification. 

In  this  speech  Trumbull  gave  public  expression  to  his 
feelings  regarding  the  feeble  prosecution  of  the  war  to 
which  he  had  given  private  expression  in  the  letters  to 
friends  referred  to  in  the  preceding  chapter.  He  said : 

I  trust  that  within  a  year,  in  less  time  than  it  will  take  to  make 
this  constitutional  amendment  effective,  our  armies  will  have 
put  to  flight  the  rebel  armies.  I  think  it  ought  to  have  been 


226  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

done  long  ago.  Hundreds  of  millions  of  treasure  and  a  hundred 
thousand  lives  would  have  been  saved  had  the  power  of  this 
republic  been  concentrated  under  one  mind  and  hurled  in  masses 
upon  the  main  rebel  armies.  This  is  what  our  patriotic  soldiers 
have  wanted  and  what  I  trust  is  now  soon  to  be  done.  But 
instead  of  looking  back  and  mourning  over  the  errors  of  the 
past,  let  us  remember  them  only  for  the  lessons  they  teach  for 
the  future.  Forgetting  the  things  which  are  past,  let  us  press 
forward  to  the  accomplishment  of  what  is  before.  We  have  at 
last  placed  at  the  head  of  our  armies  a  man  in  whom  the  coun 
try  has  confidence,  a  man  who  has  won  victories  wherever  he 
has  been,  and  I  trust  that  his  mind  is  to  be  permitted,  uninter- 
fered  with,  to  unite  our  forces,  never  before  so  formidable  as 
to-day,  in  one  or  two  grand  armies,  and  hurl  them  upon  the 
rebel  force.1 

The  feeling  here  expressed  by  Trumbull  was  the  pre 
vailing  sentiment  at  Washington  at  that  time,  even  in 
President  Lincoln's  Cabinet.  Both  Gideon  Welles  and 
Edward  Bates  shared  it.  Welles  wrote: 

In  this  whole  summer's  campaign  I  have  been  unable  to  see 
or  hear  or  obtain  evidence  of  power  or  will  or  talent  or  original 
ity  on  the  part  of  General  Halleck.  He  has  suggested  nothing, 
decided  nothing,  done  nothing  but  scold  and  smoke  and  scratch 
his  elbows.  Is  it  possible  that  the  energies  of  a  nation  should  be 
wasted  by  the  incapacity  of  such  a  man? 

When  Welles  said  to  the  President  that  he  had  observed 
the  "inertness  if  not  incapacity  of  the  General-in-Chief, 
and  had  hoped  that  he  [the  President]  who  had  better 
and  more  correct  views  would  issue  peremptory  orders," 
Lincoln  replied  that  it  was  better  that  he,  who  was  not 
a  military  man,  should  defer  to  Halleck,  rather  than 
Halleck  to  him. 

Additional  light  is  thrown  by  an  entry  in  Hay's 
"Diaries"2  under  date  April  28,  1864,  where  Lincoln 
says: 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1863-64,  part  2,  p.  1314.  a  Vol.  i,  p.  187. 


THE  THIRTEENTH  AMENDMENT  227 

When  it  was  proposed  to  station  Halleck  in  general  command, 
he  insisted,  to  use  his  own  language,  on  the  appointment  of 
a  General-in-Chief  who  should  be  held  responsible  for  results. 
We  appointed  him,  and  all  went  well  enough  until  after  Pope's 
defeat,  when  he  broke  down,  —  nerve  and  pluck  all  gone,  — 
and  has  ever  since  evaded  all  possible  responsibility,  little  more, 
since  that,  than  a  first-rate  clerk. 

General  Francis  V.  Greene,  reviewing  the  war  as  a 
whole,  says  that 

If  Lincoln  had  placed  Grant  in  command  of  the  Western 
armies  in  July,  1862,  when  Halleck  was  made  General-in-Chief, 
instead  of  in  October,  1863,  it  would  have  probably  shortened 
the  war  by  a  year.1 

This  opinion  is  concurred  in  by  General  Grenville  M. 
Dodge,  one  of  the  surviving  major-generals  of  the  Civil 
War,2  and  I  imagine  that  it  will  not  be  disputed  by  any 
military  man  at  the  present  day.  These  citations  show 
that  the  opinions  held  by  Trumbull,  as  to  the  inefficiency 
of  the  directing  force  of  the  Union  armies,  up  to  the  time 
when  Grant  was  called  to  take  command  at  Washington, 
were  not  those  of  a  mere  fault-finder  and  backbiter. 

A  notable  speech  in  favor  of  the  anti-slavery  amend 
ment  was  made  by  Henderson,  of  Missouri,  who  was  him 
self  a  slave-owner.  The  most  impressive  speech  made  in 
either  branch  of  Congress,  however,  was  that  of  Senator 
Reverdy  Johnson,  of  Maryland.  The  fact  that  he  repre 
sented  a  slaveholding  State  could  not  fail  to  add  force  to 
any  argument  he  might  make  in  support  of  the  measure, 
but  the  argument  itself,  both  in  its  moral  and  its  legal 
aspects,  was  of  surpassing  merit.  It  deserves  a  high  place 
in  the  annals  of  senatorial  eloquence. 

The  constitutional  amendment  was  under  debate  in  the 
Senate  until  the  8th  of  April,  1864,  when  it  was  passed  by 

1  Scribner's  Magazine,  July,  1909.  2  In  a  letter  to  the  writer. 


228  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

a  vote  of  38  to  6.  The  negative  votes  were  the  two  from 
Delaware,  two  from  Kentucky,  and  those  of  Hendricks, 
of  Indiana,  and  McDougall,  of  California.  It  then  went 
to  the  House,  where  it  was  under  consideration  till  the 
15th  of  June,  when  it  failed  of  passage  by  a  vote  of  93 
to  65,  not  two  thirds.  The  Democrats  generally  voted  in 
the  negative.  A  second  attempt  to  pass  it  was  made  in 
the  House  on  February  1, 1865,  this  time  successfully,  the 
yeas  being  119  and  the  nays,  56.  There  was  an  extraor 
dinary  scene  in  the  House  when  the  final  vote  was  taken. 
It  is  described  by  George  W.  Julian,  in  his  "Recollec 
tions"  (page  250),  thus: 

The  time  for  the  momentous  vote  had  now  come,  and  no  lan 
guage  could  describe  the  solemnity  and  impressiveness  of  the 
spectacle  pending  the  roll-call.  The  success  of  the  measure  had 
been  considered  very  doubtful,  and  depended  upon  certain 
negotiations,  the  result  of  which  was  not  fully  assured,  and  the 
particulars  of  which  never  reached  the  public.1  The  anxiety 
and  suspense  during  the  balloting  produced  a  deathly  stillness, 
but  when  it  became  certainly  known  that  the  measure  had  pre 
vailed,  the  cheering  in  the  densely  packed  hall  and  galleries 
surpassed  all  precedent  and  beggared  all  description.  Mem 
bers  joined  in  the  general  shouting,  which  was  kept  up  for 

1  The  particulars  referred  to  by  Julian  were  subsequently  made  public  by 
Mr.  A.  G.  Riddle  in  his  Recollections  of  War-Time,  p.  325.  Two  Democrats  were 
induced  to  vote  in  the  affirmative  and  one  other  to  be  absent  when  the  vote  was 
taken.  One  of  them  was  induced  to  vote  right  by  the  promise  of  an  office  for  his 
brother;  another  was  facing  an  election  contest  in  the  coming  Congress  where 
his  own  seat  was  claimed  by  a  Republican  opponent.  The  Democrat  was  prom 
ised  favorable  consideration  by  the  Republicans  before  the  testimony  in  the 
case  was  examined.  The  third  was  counsel  for  a  railroad  against  whose  interests 
a  bill  was  about  to  be  reported  in  the  Senate,  which  bill  was  in  the  control  of 
Charles  Sumner.  The  bill  would  not  be  reported,  or  not  reported  soon,  if  the 
Congressman  should  be  absent  when  the  vote  was  taken.  These  arrangements, 
Riddle  says,  were  negotiated  by  James  M.  Ashley,  of  Ohio,  in  whose  hands  the 
Republicans  of  the  House  had  deposited  their  honor  for  the  time  being.  If  the 
three  Democrats  had  voted  in  the  negative,  the  result  would  have  been  117  to 
59,  one  less  than  the  necessary  two  thirds.  But  that  would  only  have  delayed 
the  adoption  of  the  amendment  till  the  next  Congress. 


THE  THIRTEENTH  AMENDMENT  229 

several    minutes,  many  embracing   each   other,    and   others 
completely  surrendering  themselves  to  their  tears  of  joy.  .  .  . 

The  ratification  of  the  amendment  was  announced  by 
the  Secretary  of  State  on  the  18th  of  December,  1865. 
Three  states,  South  Carolina,  Alabama,  and  Florida, 
when  they  ratified  it,  passed  resolutions  expressing  their 
understanding  that  the  second  section  did  not  authorize 
Congress  to  legislate  on  the  political  status  or  civil  rela 
tions  of  the  negroes,  but  merely  to  confirm  and  protect 
their  freedom.  On  November  1,  1865,  Governor  Perry,  of 
South  Carolina,  wrote  to  President  Johnson,  saying  that 
his  state  had  abolished  slavery  in  all  good  faith  and  never 
would  wish  to  restore  it  again,  but  that  his  people  feared 
that  the  second  section  might  be  construed  to  give  Con 
gress  local  power  over  legislation  respecting  negroes  and 
white  men  in  the  state  of  freedom.  To  this  letter  Secre 
tary  Seward  replied  that  the  second  section  was  "really 
restraining  in  its  effect  instead  of  enlarging  the  powers  of 
Congress."  By  this  he  meant  that  it  restrained  Congress 
to  the  single  subject  of  slavery.  It  did  not  give  citizen 
ship  or  civil  rights  to  the  freedmen.  The  legislature  of 
South  Carolina  accordingly  ratified  the  amendment  on 
the  13th  of  November,  and  put  on  record  the  letter  of 
Seward  as  the  official  interpretation  of  this  clause  by  the 
Federal  Executive.  Alabama  did  substantially  the  same 
on  the  2d  of  December  and  Florida  on  the  28th  of 
December.  Seward's  interpretation  of  the  second  sec 
tion  of  the  amendment  turned  out  to  be  correct,  but 
many  years  of  doubt  and  gloom  were  to  pass  before  a  de 
cision  upon  it  was  reached  in  the  Supreme  Court. 

From  what  has  gone  before  it  appears  doubtful  whether 
President  Lincoln's  proclamation  of  emancipation  freed 
any  slaves  legally.  Its  immediate  value  was  not  so  much 
in  its  effect  upon  the  blacks  as  upon  the  whites.  It  liber- 


230  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

ated  millions  of  the  latter  from  bondage  to  a  false  philoso 
phy  and  a  monstrous  social  creed  and  made  possible  and 
necessary  the  adoption  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment. 
To  Senator  Trumbull  belongs  the  distinction  of  having 
traced  its  lines  and  this  is  his  title  to  immortality. 


CHAPTER  XV 

RECONSTRUCTION 

THE  next  event  of  world-wide  concern  was  the  assassi 
nation  of  President  Lincoln,  which  took  place  April  14, 
1865.  It  does  not  come  within  the  scope  of  this  work, 
except  as  it  finds  expression  or  comment  in  the  Trumbull 
papers.  One  such,  found  in  a  letter  of  Norman  B.  Judd, 
Minister  to  Prussia,  dated  Berlin,  May  7,  ought  to  be 
preserved. 

At  the  present  moment  he  [Lincoln]  is  deified  in  Europe. 
History  shows  no  similar  outburst  of  grief  and  indignation. 
Crowned  heads  and  statesmen,  parliaments  and  corporate 
bodies,  literary  institutions  and  the  people,  all  vie  in  pronounc 
ing  the  eulogy.  The  entire  press  of  Europe  has  for  the  last  ten 
days  been  filled  with  nothing  else.  We  have  had  a  very  impres 
sive  and  imposing  funeral  service.  Kings,  Representatives, 
Ministers,  and  the  Diplomatic  Corps  were  amongst  the  num 
ber  present.  The  people  assembled  to  three  times  the  capac 
ity  of  the  church.  I  told  my  colleagues  to  come  without  uni 
form.  —  Something  new  under  the  sun  at  this  Court  of  Uni 
forms. 

When  the  work  of  Reconstruction  began,  two  opposing 
ideas  came  in  conflict  with  each  other  respecting  the  status 
of  the  seceding  states.  One  was  that  the  act  of  secession 
annihilated  the  State  Governments  and  put  the  inhabi- 
rants  and  their  belongings  in  the  condition  of  newly 
acquired  territories,  subject  in  all  things  to  the  conquer 
ing  power.  This  opinion  was  held  by  Charles  Sumner  and 
Thaddeus  Stevens.  The  other  view  was  that  every  act  of 


232  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

secession  was  null  and  void;  that  state  sovereignty  was 
suspended  but  not  extinguished  in  the  Confederacy;  and 
that  when  the  rebellion  was  crushed,  it  became  the  duty 
of  the  General  Government  to  recognize  the  loyal  men 
in  each  state,  as  the  rightful  nucleus  of  sovereignty,  to 
assist  them  to  set  the  state  Governments  going  again;  in 
harmony,  however,  with  accomplished  facts,  including 
the  abolishment  of  slavery. 

The  latter  view  had  been  adopted  by  President  Lin 
coln  in  a  proclamation  issued  simultaneously  with  his 
annual  message  to  Congress  December  8, 1863.  This  proc 
lamation  declared  that  whenever  the  voters  of  any  seced 
ing  state,  not  less  in  number  than  one  tenth  of  those  who 
had  voted  in  the  presidential  election  of  1860,  should  rees 
tablish  a  loyal  State  Government,  it  should  be  recognized 
as  the  true  Government  of  the  state.  The  qualifications 
of  voters  should  be  those  existing  in  the  state  immedi 
ately  before  secession,  "excluding  all  others,"  but  it  was 
provided  that  all  previous  proclamations  of  the  Presi 
dent  and  all  acts  of  Congress  in  reference  to  slavery  should 
be  held  inviolable.  It  was  explained  that  the  question 
of  admitting  to  seats  in  Congress  any  persons  who 
might  be  elected  by  such  states  as  members  would  rest 
with  the  respective  houses  exclusively.  .It  was  added 
that  while  this  plan  of  Reconstruction  was  favored  by 
the  President  he  did  not  mean  that  no  other  would  be 
acceptable. 

In  pursuance  of  the  proclamation  an  election  was  held 
in  February,  1864,  in  that  portion  of  Louisiana  controlled 
by  the  Union  army  under  command  of  General  Banks,  at 
which  election  11,411  votes  were  cast  —  the  whole  vote 
of  the  state  had  usually  been  about  40,000.  At  this  elec 
tion,  Michael  Hahn  had  been  chosen  governor  and  he  was 
inaugurated  as  such  on  the  4th  of  March,  with  impressive 


RECONSTRUCTION  233 

ceremonies,  "in  the  presence  of  more  than  50,000  people," 
as  General  Banks  announced.  Writing  to  Governor  Hahn 
under  date,  March  13,  1864,  Lincoln  said: 

Now  you  are  about  to  have  a  convention  which,  among  other 
things,  will  probably  define  the  elective  franchise.  I  barely  sug 
gest  for  your  private  consideration  whether  some  of  the  colored 
people  may  not  be  let  in,  as,  for  instance,  the  very  intelligent 
and  especially  those  who  have  fought  gallantly  in  our  ranks. 
They  will  probably  help,  in  some  trying  time  to  come,  to  keep 
the  jewel  of  liberty  in  the  family  of  freedom.  But  this  is  only  a 
suggestion,  not  to  the  public  but  to  you  alone. 

A  constitutional  convention  of  Louisiana  was  elected 
March  28, 1864;  it  assembled  April  6;  adopted  a  free  state 
constitution  July  22,  which  was  ratified  by  popular  vote 
September  5.  Under  this  constitution  a  legislature  was 
elected  by  which  two  Senators  were  chosen  to  represent 
the  state  at  Washington.  Their  credentials  were  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  on  the  8th  of 
January,  1865,  Trumbull  called  at  the  White  House  to 
consult  with  Lincoln  respecting  their  admission.  One  of 
the  consequences  of  the  interview  was  the  unanimous 
agreement  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  in  favor  of  a  joint 
resolution  recognizing  the  Government  of  which  Michael 
Hahn  was  the  head.  This  resolution  was  reported  by 
Trumbull  on  the  23d  of  February.  Sumner  objected  to  it 
because  the  constitution  did  not  grant  negro  suffrage,  and 
he  avowed  the  intention  of  using  all  parliamentary  means 
to  defeat  it.  In  this  endeavor  he  had  the  cooperation  of 
Senators  Chandler  and  Wade  and  of  most  of  the  Demo 
crats.  The  latter  opposed  the  resolution  because  the  con- 
sitution  was  not  the  work,of  the  majority  of  the  white 
people  of  the  state.  On  the  24th,  there  was  a  debate  of 
some  bitterness  between  Sumner  and  Doolittle.  The  lat 
ter  contended  that  the  vote  of  Louisiana  was  needed  to 


234  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

ratify  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  of  the  Federal  Consti 
tution.  To  this  Sumner  replied  that  the  so-called  state  of 
Louisiana  was  a  shadow,  that  no  such  state  existed,  and 
that  its  ratification  would  be  worthless  if  obtained.  In 
this  contention  he  was  sustained  by  Garrett  Davis,  of 
Kentucky. 

There  were  only  seven  working  days  remaining  of  the 
Thirty-eighth  Congress,  and  Sumner  managed  to  stave 
off  the  vote,  although  there  was  a  large  majority  in  favor 
of  the  resolution,  as  was  shown  by  roll-calls  on  various 
motions.  There  was  a  sharp  passage-at-arms  between 
Trumbull  and  Sumner,  which  made  a  breach  between 
them  for  a  considerable  time. 

On  the  llth  of  April,  five  days  before  his  assassination, 
Lincoln  delivered  a  carefully  prepared  address  from  the 
balcony  of  the  White  House  in  response  to  a  greeting  of 
citizens  who  had  assembled  to  welcome  him  on  his  return 
from  Richmond  after  the  surrender  of  that  city.  He 
embraced  the  occasion  to  call  attention  again  to  the  ques 
tion  of  Reconstruction  which  was  now  becoming  momen 
tous.  He  referred  to  the  plan  which  he  had  recommended 
in  his  annual  message  of  December,  1863,  and  said  that  it 
had  received  the  approval  of  every  member  of  his  Cabi 
net  (which  then  included  Chase  and  Blair).  It  had  not 
been  objected  to  by  any  professed  emancipationist  until 
after  the  news  reached  Washington  that  the  people  of 
Louisiana  were  about  to  take  action  in  accordance  with  it. 
Then  the  question  had  been  raised  whether  the  seceded 
states  were  in  the  Union  or  out  of  it.  He  did  not  consider 
that  question  a  material  one,  but  rather  a  pernicious 
abstraction,  having  only  the  mischievous  effect  of  divid 
ing  loyal  men.  The  question  now  uppermost  was  how  to 
get  the  seceded  states  again  into  their  proper  practical 
relations  with*the  Union.  "Let  us  all  join/'  he  said,  "in 


RECONSTRUCTION  235 

doing  the  acts  necessary  to  restoring  the  proper  practical 
relations  between  these  states  and  the  Union,  and  each 
forever  after  innocently  indulge  his  own  opinion  whether, 
in  doing  the  acts,  he  brought  the  states  from  without  into 
the  Union,  or  only  gave  them  proper  assistance,  they 
never  having  been  out."  The  question  was  not  whether 
the  Louisiana  Government  as  reconstructed  was  quite  all 
that  was  desirable,  but  whether  it  was  wiser  to  take  it  and 
help  to  improve  it,  or  to  reject  and  disperse  it.  "  Concede 
that  the  new  Government  of  Louisiana  is  only,  to  what  it 
should  be,  as  the  egg  is  to  the  fowl,  we  shall  sooner  have 
the  fowl  by  hatching  the  egg  than  by  smashing  it."  He 
concluded  by  saying  that  his  remarks  would  apply  gener 
ally  to  other  states,  but  that  there  were  peculiarities  per 
taining  to  each  state,  and  important  and  sudden  changes 
occurring  in  the  same  state,  so  that  no  exclusive  and 
inflexible  plan  could  safely  be  prescribed  as  to  details. 
Therefore,  he  held  himself  free  to  make  some  new  an 
nouncement  to  the  people  of  the  South  when  satisfied 
that  such  action  would  be  proper. 

This  was,  in  a  political  sense,  his  last  will  and  testament. 
No  other  communication  from  him  to  his  countrymen  was 
more  fraught  with  wisdom  and  patriotism.  It  received  the 
prompt  endorsement  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  who 
defended  it  when  attacked  by  Professor  Newman,  of 
London  University.1  Garrison  held  not  only  that  Lincoln 
had  no  right  to  interfere  with  the  voting  laws  of  the  states, 
but  that  it  would  be  bad  policy  to  do  so;  for  if  negro 
suffrage  were  imposed  upon  the  South  against  the  will  of 
the  people,  then,  "as  soon  as  the  State  was  organized 
and  left  to  manage  its  own  affairs,  the  white  population, 
with  their  superior  intelligence,  wealth,  and  power, 
would  unquestionably  alter  the  franchise  in  accordance 

1  Life  of  Garrison,  by  his  sons,  iv,  123. 


236  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

with  their  prejudices  and  exclude  those  thus  summarily 
brought  to  the  polls." 

Garrison  saw  further  than  Sumner,  but  nobody  at 
the  North  then  imagined  the  tremendous  consequences 
that  were  to  follow  the  upsetting  of  Lincoln's  plan.  If 
Trumbull's  resolution  had  passed,  it  would  have  served  as 
a  precedent  for  all  the  seceding  states,  in  which  case  most 
of  the  misery  of  the  next  fifteen  years  in  the  South,  includ 
ing  the  carpet-bag  governments  and  the  Ku-Klux-Klan, 
would  have  been  avoided. 

President  Johnson  at  first  had  been  rather  more  radical 
than  the  majority  of  his  party  as  to  the  measure  of  pun 
ishment  to  be  visited  upon  the  leaders  of  the  rebellion. 
He  had  several  times  talked  about  "making  treason 
odious,"  and  had  said  that  traitors  should  take  back  seats 
in  the  work  of  Reconstruction,  and  had  used  language 
which  implied  that  some  of  the  more  prominent  Confeder 
ates  ought  to  be  tried  and  executed  for  treason.  He  had 
a  sharp  difference  with  General  Grant  as  to  the  inclusion 
of  General  Lee  in  that  category,  Grant  insisting  that  no 
officer  or  soldier  who  had  observed  the  terms  of  capitula 
tion  at  Appomattox  could  be  rightfully  molested.1 

But  this  feeling  of  animosity  on  Johnson's  part  grad 
ually  passed  away.  In  an  authorized  interview  with 
George  L.  Stearns,  October  3,  1865,  on  the  subject  of 
Reconstruction,  and  again  in  an  interview  with  Frederick 
Douglass  and  others,  February  7,  1866,  on  the  suffrage 
question,  he  said  nothing  about  making  treason  odious, 
but  declared  himself  opposed  to  unrestricted  negro  suf 
frage  because  he  believed  it  would  lead  to  a  war  of  races 
—  a  war  between  the  non-slaveholding  class  (the  poor 
whites)  and  the  negroes.  The  former  hated  and  despised 

1  Grant's  testimony  before  the  House  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  July  18, 
Utf.    McPherson,  p.  •**      ,. 


RECONSTRUCTION  237 

the  latter,  and  this  feeling  he  thought  would  be  intensified 
if  the  suffrage  were  granted  to  the  negroes. 

"The  query  comes  up,"  said  Johnson  in  his  colloquy 
with  Douglass,  "whether  these  two  races,  situated  as 
they  were  before,  without  preparation,  without  time  for 
the  slightest  improvement,  whether  the  one  should  be 
turned  loose  upon  the  other,  and  be  thrown  together  at 
the  ballot-box  with  this  enmity  and  hate  existing  between 
them.  The  question  comes  up  right  there,  whether  we 
don't  commence  a  war  of  races.  I  think  I  understand  this 
thing,  and  especially  is  this  the  case  when  you  force  it 
upon  a  people  without  their  consent." 

Johnson  had  adopted  not  only  Lincoln's  plan  of  Recon 
struction,  but  his  Cabinet  also.  At  its  first  meeting,  April 
16,  the  unfinished  project  for  the  establishment  of  civil 
government  in  Virginia,  drafted  by  Secretary  Stanton  at 
Lincoln's  instance,  was  presented  but  not  acted  on.  At 
a  subsequent  meeting,  May  8,  it  was  considered  and 
adopted,  and  was  promulgated  as  an  Executive  Order  on 
the  following  day.  It  recognized  Francis  M.  Peirpoint, 
who  had  been  nominal  governor  in  Lincoln's  time,  as 
actual  governor,  and  declared  that  in  order  to  guarantee 
to  the  state  of  Virginia  a  republican  form  of  government 
and  to  afford  the  advantage  and  security  of  domestic 
laws,  and  the  full  and  complete  restoration  of  peace,  he 
would  be  aided  by  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
in  the  measures  he  might  take  to  accomplish  those  ends. 

A  loyal  State  Government  of  considerable  scope  and 
solidity,  formed  by  Johnson  himself  as  military  governor, 
already  existed  in  Tennessee.  This  was  now  recognized 
by  the  President  as  an  accomplished  fact.  W.  G.  Brown- 
low  had  been  elected  governor,  and  a  legislature  had  been 
constituted,  which  had  passed  a  franchise  act  that  limited 
the  voting  privilege  to  whites  and  excluded  rebels  of  a 


238  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

certain  grade.  The  Lincoln  State  Government  of  Louisiana 
and  a  similar  one  in  Arkansas  were  allowed  to  stand. 

On  the  29th  of  May,  the  President  issued  an  Executive 
Order  appointing  W.  W.  Holden  provisional  governor  of 
North  Carolina,  and  prescribing  certain  duties  to  be  per 
formed  by  him;  among  others  that  of  calling  a  convention 
to  be  chosen  by  the  loyal  people  of  the  state  for  the  pur 
pose  of  altering  or  amending  the  state  constitution,  and 
forming  a  government  fit  to  be  recognized  and  defended 
by  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  Following  the 
precedent  made  by  Lincoln  in  the  Louisiana  case,  the 
qualifications  of  voters  at  the  election  of  delegates  to 
the  convention  were  fixed  and  declared  to  be  those  "pre 
scribed  by  the  constitution  and  laws  of  North  Carolina 
in  force  immediately  before  the  20th  day  of  May,  1861,  the 
date  of  the  so-called  ordinance  of  secession,"  excepting, 
however,  certain  classes  of  whites.  Similar  orders  fol 
lowed  in  rapid  succession  for  reorganizing  Mississippi, 
Georgia,  Texas,  Alabama,  South  Carolina,  and  Florida, 
the  last  one  bearing  date  July  13,  1865.  Before  the  form 
of  the  order  was  adopted,  a  vote  had  been  taken  in  the 
Cabinet  on  the  question  whether  negroes  should  be 
allowed  to  vote  in  the  election  of  Delegates.  Of  the  six 
members  present,  three  had  voted  in  the  affirmative  and 
three  in  the  negative.  Seward  was  not  present,  being  still 
confined  to  his  bed  by  the  wounds  inflicted  on  him  the 
night  when  Lincoln  was  assassinated.  The  President  then 
took  the  matter  in  his  own  hands,  and  at  the  next  meet 
ing  of  the  Cabinet  read  the  North  Carolina  order  and  none 
of  the  members  offered  any  objection  to  it. 

Thus  Reconstruction  had  been  mapped  out,  so  far  as 
the  executive  branch  of  the  Government  was  concerned, 
before  the  Thirty -ninth  Congress  assembled. 

Together  with  the  order  for  Reconstruction  in  North 


RECONSTRUCTION  239 

Carolina,  the  President  issued  a  proclamation  of  amnesty 
for  all  persons  who  had  participated  in  the  rebellion, 
excepting,  however,  certain  specified  classes  of  offenders. 
This  proclamation  bore  the  same  date,  and  was  published 
simultaneously  with  the  North  Carolina  order;  but  the 
newspapers  of  the  day,  while  commenting  upon  and  gen 
erally  approving,  made  little  account  of  the  fact  that 
negroes  were  excluded  from  voting  at  the  election  for 
delegates.  The  New  York  Tribune  of  May  30  merely 
said:  "Of  course  no  blacks  can  vote."  The  New  York 
Times  made  mention  of  the  same  fact. 

The  New  York  Evening  Post  of  the  same  date,  however, 
after  pointing  out  that  only  white  men  and  taxpayers 
could  vote  in  the  coming  election  in  North  Carolina,  said: 

Unless,  in  the  process  of  the  reorganization,  we  build  upon 
the  principle  laid  down  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
that  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal,  there  is  no  assurance 
that  the  different  elements  of  which  our  social  and  political 
state  is  composed  will  subsist  in  harmony  and  tranquil  coopera 
tion.  In  that  direction  lies  our  way  to  political  safety.  If  we 
attempt  to  build  upon  any  foundation  of  inequality  between 
races  and  castes,  we  shall  find  a  condition  of  things  prevailing 
similar  to  that  which  has  been  the  source  of  so  many  calamities 
to  Ireland. 

The  first  blast  against  Andrew  Johnson  was  sounded 
by  Wendell  Phillips  at  the  New  England  Anti-Slavery 
Convention,  Boston,  May  31,  on  a  resolution  offered  by 
himself  affirming  that 

The  reconstruction  of  the  rebel  states  without  negro  suffrage 
is  a  practical  surrender  to  the  Confederacy  and  will  make  the 
anti-slavery  proclamation  of  the  late  President,  and  even  the 
expected  amendment  of  the  Constitution  utterly  inefficient  for 
the  freedom  and  protection  of  the  negro. 

This  resolution  was  supported  by  Phillips  in  a  spirit  of 
blind  fury.    Every  life  and  every  dollar  that  had  been 


240  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

spent  by  the  North  had  been  stolen,  he  contended,  if  this 
policy  should  prevail,  and  "there  was  but  one  way  in 
which  the  people  could  still  hold  the  helm  of  affairs,  and 
that  was  by  a  repudiation  of  the  entire  war  debt ! "  Such  a 
party  would  have  his  voice  and  vote  until  God  called  him 
home.  "Better,  far  better,  would  it  have  been  for  Grant 
to  have  surrendered  to  Lee,  than  for  Johnson  to  have  sur 
rendered  to  North  Carolina." 

The  New  York  Tribune,  June  2,  took  notice  of  Phillips, 
and,  after  adverting  to  his  intemperate  attacks  on  Salmon 
P.  Chase  and  Abraham  Lincoln  in  the  past,  turned  to  his 
"like  delicate  attentions"  to  Mr.  Lincoln's  successor. 

President  Johnson  [it  said]  believes  in,  and  favors,  the  exten 
sion  of  the  elective  franchise  to  blacks,  but  since  he  holds  that 
no  state  has  gone  out,  or  could  go  out,  of  the  Union,  he  believes 
that  the  Southern  state  constitutions  stand  as  before,  and  that 
the  right  of  suffrage  stands  as  before  until  legally  changed.  We 
do  not  insist  [it  continued]  that  this  is  the  true  doctrine  —  we 
do  not  admit  an  unqualified  right  in  the  enfranchised  people  of 
any  state  to  do  as  they  will  with  the  residue.  Yet  we  insist  that 
President  Johnson's  view  is  one  that  a  true  man  may  honestly, 
conscientiously  hold —  may  hold  it  without  being  a  hypocrite, 
a  demagogue,  or  a  tool  of  the  slave  power.  And  we  think  few 
considerate  persons  will  deny  that  it  is  greatly  desirable,  if  the 
desired  reparation  in  the  status  of  the  freedmen  can  be  achieved 
through  the  several  states  rather  than  over  them  —  that  it 
would  be  more  stable,  less  grudging,  more  real,  if  thus  accom 
plished.  In  fact,  we  should  prefer  waiting  a  year  or  two,  or 
accepting  a  limited  enfranchisement,  to  a  full  recognition  of  the 
Equal  Rights  of  Man  by  virtue  only  of  a  presidential  edict, 
or  order  from  the  War  Department,  or  even  an  act  of  Con 
gress. 

The  New  York  Times,  June  21,  concurred,  saying: 

It  is  an  open  question  whether  the  Government  should  or 
should  not  attempt  to  secure  suffrage  to  the  Southern  blacks; 
the  best  men  may  differ  about  it. 


RECONSTRUCTION  241 

It  scored  Wendell  Phillips  for  advocating  repudiation  of 
the  national  debt  as  a  cure  for  any  other  evil  whatsoever. 

When  Mr.  Phillips  says  that  if  the  Government  and  the  peo 
ple  do  not  accept  his  doctrine,  he  will  turn  scoundrel  and  join  a 
party  of  scoundrels,  he  does  his  doctrine  the  very  worst  injury 
possible. 

Meanwhile  there  was  a  witches'  caldron  boiling  in  the 
South.  The  Confederate  States  had  been  impoverished 
by  the  war.  Their  labor  system  had  been  overturned 
under  circumstances  and  in  a  mode  that  no  other  people 
had  ever  experienced.  The  negroes  knew  nothing  of  the 
responsibilities  of  freedom.  They  could  not  understand 
the  meaning  of  a  contract.  The  ex-slaves,  when  hired 
for  a  specified  time,  might  abandon  their  work  the  next 
day  or  the  next  week,  and  return  the  following  day  or 
week  and  run  the  risk  of  being  flogged  or  shot,  either  for 
going  away  or  for  coming  back.  The  ex-masters,  knowing 
only  one  way  of  getting  work  out  of  the  negro,  —  that  of 
compulsion,  —  contended  and  believed  that  there  was  no 
other  way,  or  none  that  would  serve  the  purpose  during 
their  lifetime ;  and  since  the  crops  of  the  present  year  could 
not  wait  for  the  milder  teachings  of  education  and  reason, 
they  adopted  the  only  means  that  would  secure  immediate 
results.  The  planters,  or  the  majority  of  them,  were  still 
further  crippled  by  having  no  money  to  pay  wages.  All 
of  their  money  had  become  filthy  rags  by  the  downfall  of 
the  Confederacy.  The  only  alternative  was  hiring  labor 
on  shares.  This  was  an  embarrassment  that  the  Northern 
men  (carpet-baggers)  who  went  to  the  South  directly 
after  the  war  did  not  suffer  from.  Some  of  these,  tempted 
by  the  high  price  of  cotton  and  the  low  price  of  land,  hired 
or  bought  plantations,  and  they  had  the  pick  of  the  labor 
market  because  they  could  pay  cash.  Their  example 
was  a  fresh  irritation  to  the  impecunious  native  planter, 


242  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

who,  in  losing  the  Confederacy,  had  lost  everything 
except  the  clothes  he  stood  in,  which  were  much  the 
worse  for  wear. 

If  there  was  to  be  a  crop  of  cotton,  or  of  anything,  in 
1865,  the  laboring  population  must  be  kept  in  some  kind 
of  order.  Work  days  must  be  continuous,  and  not  alter 
native  with  hunting  and  fishing  days  and  play  days. 
The  planters  looked  to  their  legislatures  in  this  emer 
gency,  and  the  legislatures  enacted  laws  as  near  to  the 
old  slave  codes  as  the  condition  of  emancipation  would 
allow,  —  if  not  nearer.  These  enactments  began  to  reach 
the  North  before  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress  assembled. 
They  were  accompanied  by  tales  of  cruelty  and  outrage 
committed  upon  the  freedmen,  and  of  disloyal  utterances 
and  threats  on  the  part  of  the  unreconciled  whites,  male 
and  female,  who  had  been  deprived  of  every  weapon 
except  their  tongues.  Little  account  was  made  of  the 
need  of  time  in  which  to  become  reconciled  to  these 
changes  and  to  acquire  admiration  for  those  who  had 
brought  them  about. 

Among  letters  which  reached  Trumbull  was  one  from 
Colonel  J.  W.  Shaffer,  of  the  Union  Army,  dated  New 
Orleans,  December  25,  1865,  who  gave  the  following 
account  of  what  he  had  observed  along  the  Gulf  Coast: 

I  have  been  to  Mobile,  spent  a  week  there,  have  traveled 
around  in  this  state,  talked  much  with  friend  and  enemy,  and 
I  unhesitatingly  say  that  our  President  has  been  going  too  fast. 
I  am  told  by  all  Union  men  that  after  the  surrender  of  the  rebel 
armies  the  men  returned  perfectly  quiet,  came  to  Southern  and 
Northern  Union  men,  saying,  "  We  don't  know  what  is  expected 
of  us  by  the  Government,  but  one  thing  is  certain,  we  are  tired 
of  war  and  desire  above  all  things  to  return  to  the  quiet  pur 
suits  of  life  and  try  to  mend  our  fortune  as  best  we  can,  and 
cultivate  a  friendly  feeling  with  all  parts  of  the  country  once 
more;  now  tell  us  how  to  do  this."  Soon,  however,  to  their  sur- 


RECONSTRUCTION  243 

prise  they  found  that  the  control  of  everything  was  to  be  again 
put  in  their  hands,  and  at  once  they  became  insolent,  abused 
the  Government  openly,  and  openly  declared  that  Union  men 
and  Yankees  must  leave  as  soon  as  the  military  is  withdrawn. 
Had  they  been  given  to  understand  that  the  Government  was 
going  to  continue  to  govern  and  control,  and  that  Union  men 
alone  would  be  trusted  with  the  management  of  affairs,  these 
people  would  have  been  entirely  satisfied,  glad  to  escape  with 
their  lives,  and  would  at  once  have  adapted  themselves  to  cir 
cumstances.  Now  they  are  drunk  with  power,  ruling  and  abus 
ing  every  loyal  man,  white  and  black. 

Per  contra,  Dr.  C.  H.  Ray  wrote,  under  date  Septem 
ber  29,  1865,  on  the  subject  of  Reconstruction: 

What  are  our  Republican  papers  thinking  of  when  they  make 
war  upon  the  President  as  they  are  now  doing?  I  see  that  there 
is  hardly  one  to  stand  up  in  his  defense,  and  that  he  will  be 
fought  out  of  our  ranks  into  the  arms  of  the  Democracy.  I  do 
not  see  that  he  is  so  guilty  as  he  is  said  to  be,  and  for  one  I  can 
not  join  the  cry  against  him.  What  do  his  assailants  expect  — 
to  carry  the  country  on  the  Massachusetts  idea  of  negro  suf 
frage,  female  suffrage,  confiscation,  and  hanging?  If  so,  they 
will  drive  all  moderate  men  out  of  the  party  and  the  remainder 
straight  to  perdition. 

Only  five  Northern  States  at  this  time  allowed  negroes 
to  vote  at  elections,  and  one  of  these  (New  York)  required 
a  property  qualification  from  blacks  but  not  from  whites. 
The  state  of  Illinois  had  an  unrepealed  black  code  similar 
to  that  of  Kentucky,  and  had  added  to  it,  as  lately  as 
1853,  a  law  for  imprisoning  any  black  or  mulatto  person 
brought  into,  or  coming  into,  the  state,  for  the  purpose 
of  residing  there,  whether  free  or  otherwise.  Some  liti 
gation  for  the  enforcement  of  this  act  was  begun  in 
Cass  County  in  1863,  while  the  Civil  War  was  in  pro 
gress.1 

1  Journal  of  the  Illinois  State  Historical  Society,  vol.  iv,  no.  4. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

ANDREW  JOHNSON'S  FIRST  MESSAGE 

SAID  the  New  York  Times,  December  6,  1865: 

Probably  no  executive  document  was  ever  awaited  with 
greater  interest  than  the  message  transmitted  to  Congress  yes 
terday.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  none  ever  gave  greater  satisfac 
tion  when  received.  Its  views  on  the  most  momentous  subjects, 
domestic  and  foreign,  that  ever  concerned  the  nation,  are  full 
of  wisdom,  and  are  conveyed  with  great  force  and  dignity. 

The  original  manuscript  of  the  message  thus  eulogized 
was  discovered  nearly  half  a  century  later  by  Professor 
Dunning,  of  Columbia  University,  in  the  handwriting 
of  George  Bancroft,  among  the  Johnson  papers  in  the 
Library  of  Congress. 

It  remains  a  document  creditable  alike  to  the  man  who 
composed  it  and  to  the  one  who  made  it  his  own  by 
sending  it  as  an  official  communication  to  Congress.  It 
breathed  the  spirit  of  peace  and  harmony,  of  justice  tem 
pered  with  mercy,  of  human  kindness  and  helpfulness, 
of  self-abnegation  and  self-restraint,  all  couched  in  the 
tone  of  high  statesmanship.  It  adhered,  however,  to  the 
opinion  previously  expressed  by  the  President,  that  the 
Executive  had  no  right  to  extend  the  suffrage  to  persons 
to  whom  it  had  not  been  granted  by  state  authority. 

A  discriminating  yet  warm  eulogium  of  the  message 
was  pronounced  by  the  New  York  Nation,  which  was 
then  in  the  sixth  month  of  its  existence.  It  had  criticized 
the  President's  Reconstruction  acts  as  too  hasty.  Two  or 
three  months'  time  it  considered  too  short  to  reconcile 
whites  and  blacks  and  teach  them  to  respect  each  other's 


ANDREW  JOHNSON'S  FIRST  MESSAGE      245 

rights.  Nevertheless,  taken  for  all  in  all,  the  message  was 
one  which  every  American  might  read  with  pride. 

We  do  not  know  [it  continued]  where  to  look  in  any  other  part 
of  the  globe,  for  a  statesman  whom  we  could  fix  upon  as  likely 
to  seize  the  points  of  so  great  a  question,  and  state  them  with 
so  much  clearness  and  breadth,  as  this  Tennessee  tailor  who 
was  toiling  for  his  daily  bread  in  the  humblest  of  employments 
when  the  chiefs  of  all  other  countries  were  reaping  every  advan 
tage  which  school,  college,  and  social  position  could  furnish. 
Those  who  tremble  over  the  future  of  democracy  may  well  take 
heart  again  when  men  like  Lincoln  and  Johnson  can  at  any 
great  crisis  be  drawn  from  the  poorest  ranks  of  society,  and  have 
the  destinies  of  the  nation  placed  in  their  hands  with  the  free 
assurance  that  their  very  errors  will  be  better  and  wiser  than 
the  skill  and  wisdom  of  kings  and  nobles.  For  if  the  President 
were  to  commit  to-morrow  every  mistake  or  sin  which  his  worst 
enemies  have  ever  feared,  his  plan  of  Reconstruction  would  still 
remain  the  brightest  example  of  humanity,  self-restraint,  and 
sagacity  ever  witnessed  —  something  to  which  the  history  of  no 
other  country  offers  any  approach,  and  which  it  is  safe  to  say 
none  but  a  democratic  society  would  be  capable  of  carrying  out. 

The  statesmanship  of  George  Bancroft  did  not  govern 
very  long.  The  irony  of  fate  decreed  that  within  two 
months  of  the  time  when  such  words  as  the  foregoing 
were  uttered  by  the  most  competent  critics  in  the  land, 
the  President  of  whom  they  were  spoken  should  be  in  bit 
ter  strife  with  the  majority  of  his  own  party,  and  within 
two  years  be  facing  trial  by  impeachment. 

Andrew  Johnson  was  born  of  a  fighting  race  and  in  a 
region  of  fighters.  He  shared  the  poverty  and  ignorance 
of  the  mountaineers  of  East  Tennessee.  Hard  labor  was 
his  portion  in  youth  and  early  manhood.  He  was  a  tailor 
by  trade.1  He  could  read,  but  could  not  write  until  he 

1  "For  a  man  who  had  'come  from  the  people,'  as  he  was  fond  of  saying,  and 
whose  heart  was  always  with  the  poor  and  distressed,  Andrew  Johnson  was  one 
of  the  neatest  men  in  his  dress  and  person  I  have  ever  known.  During  his  three 
years  in  Nashville,  in  particular,  he  dressed  in  black  broadcloth  frock-coat  and 


246  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

was  married,  when  the  latter  accomplishment  was  im 
parted  to  him  by  his  wife.  With  this  kind  of  start  he 
became,  like  Abraham  Lincoln,  and  in  much  the  same 
way  and  facing  the  same  difficulties,  a  public  speaker,  and 
acquired  by  steady  practice  the  faculty  of  making  his 
meaning  clear  to  the  commonest  understanding.  When  he 
found  himself  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  shortly 
before  the  outbreak  of  secession,  he  had  few  if  any  supe 
riors  as  a  debater  in  that  body,  and  the  Union  had  not  a 
more  unflinching  defender,  North  or  South.  Alexander 
H.  Stephens,  a  competent  judge,  considered  Johnson's 
speech  against  secession  the  best  one  made  in  the  Senate 
during  the  whole  controversy.  Secretary  Seward,  who  ac 
companied  him  in  his  "swing  around  the  circle"  in  1866, 
said  that  he  was  then  the  best  stump  speaker  in  the  coun 
try.  Certainly  the  speech  with  which  he  began  that  tour 
at  New  York  on  the  29th  of  August  was  a  great  one.  It 
fills  five  pages  of  McPherson's  "History  of  Reconstruc 
tion."  It  was  extemporaneous,  but  faultless  in  manner 
and  matter;  it  was  charged  with  the  spirit  of  patriotism, 
and  it  will  bear  comparison  with  anything  in  the  annals 
of  American  polemics.  If  he  had  made  no  other  speech 
in  that  campaign  the  results  might  have  been  far  differ 
ent,  and  the  Union  party  which  elected  him  might  have 
avoided  the  breach  which  soon  became  remediless. 

The  first  blow  leading  to  this  breach  was  struck  by 
Sumner  in  the  Senate,  December  19,  1865,  when  he  re 
ferred  to  a  message  of  the  President,  of  the  previous  day, 
on  the  condition  of  the  South,  as  a  "whitewashing  mes 
sage"  akin  to  that  of  President  Pierce  on  the  affairs  of 

waistcoat  and  black  doeskin  trousers,  and  wore  a  silk  hat.  This  had  been  his 
attire  for  thirty  years,  and  for  most  of  that  time,  whether  as  governor  of  Ten 
nessee,  member  of  Congress,  or  United  States  Senator,  he  had  made  all  of  his 
own  clothes."  (Benjamin  C.  Truman,  Secretary  to  Andrew  Johnson,  in  Cen 
tury  Magazine,  January,  1913.) 


ANDREW  JOHNSON'S  FIRST  MESSAGE      247 

Kansas.  When  Reverdy  Johnson  deprecated  such  an 
assault  on  the  President  of  the  United  States,  Sumner 
replied  that  it  was  "no  assault  at  all,"  but  after  two  other 
Senators  (Doolittle  and  Dixon)  had  said  that  it  was  the 
same  as  accusing  the  President  of  falsifying,  he  replied 
that  he  did  not  so  intend  it,  but  he  did  not  withdraw  or 
modify  it. 

Certain  acts  of  Southern  legislatures  on  the  subjects  of 
apprenticeship,  vagrancy,  domicile,  wages,  patrols,  idle 
ness,  disobedience  of  orders,  and  violation  of  contracts 
on  the  part  of  laborers  were  early  brought  to  the  atten 
tion  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress.  Many  of  these  acts 
betokened  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the  lawmakers  to 
reduce  the  freedmen  to  a  state  of  serfdom  or  peonage. 
The  Virginia  legislature,  for  example,  passed  a  vagrancy 
act,  the  ultimate  effect  of  which,  Major-General  Terry 
said,  would  be  to  "reduce  the  freedmen  to  a  condition 
of  servitude  worse  than  that  from  which  they  had  been 
emancipated  —  a  condition  which  will  be  slavery  in  all 
but  its  name."  Whereupon  the  general,  being  in  com 
mand  of  the  military  department,  issued  an  order  dated 
January  26,  1866,  that  "no  magistrate,  civil  officer,  or 
other  person,  shall,  in  any  way  or  manner,  apply  or 
attempt  to  apply,  the  provisions  of  said  statute  to  any 
colored  person  in  this  department."  President  Johnson 
refused  to  interfere  with  General  Terry's  order  when  it 
was  brought  to  his  attention. 

On  the  13th  of  December,  Senator  Wilson,  of  Massa 
chusetts,  introduced  a  bill  to  declare  invalid  all  acts, 
ordinances,  rules,  and  regulations  in  the  states  lately  in 
insurrection,  in  which  any  inequality  of  civil  rights  was 
established  between  persons  on  account  of  color,  race, 
or  previous  condition  of  servitude.  The  Natick  cobbler 
was  as  keen  and  fluent  a  debater  as  the  Knoxville  tailor. 


248  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

He  had  a  Yankee  drawl  in  his  pronunciation  which 
detracted  from  the  real  merits  of  his  argument,  and  so  it 
came  to  pass  that,  contrary  to  the  usual  fate  of  extem 
pore  speaking,  his  speeches  read  better  than  they 
sounded.  His  speech  in  support  of  his  measure  on  the 
21st  of  December  was  in  his  best  style.  It  was  devoid  of 
passion  or  invective.  He  cherished  no  ill-feeling  toward 
any  person,  high  or  low,  who  had  been  engaged  in  the 
rebellion.  He  did  not  seek  or  desire  to  punish  anybody. 
Least  of  all  did  he  desire  to  raise  an  issue  with  the  Presi 
dent.  He  wanted  only  peace,  order,  friendship,  and 
brotherhood  between  North  and  South,  as  soon  as  possi 
ble;  but  there  could  be  no  peace  with  these  statutes 
staring  us  in  the  face.  Therefore,  he  demanded  that  they 
be  swept  into  oblivion  with  the  slave  codes  that  had  pre 
ceded  them. 

Wilson  desired  an  immediate  vote  on  his  bill.  Senator 
Sherman  thought  that  it  ought  to  be  referred  to  a  com 
mittee  and  postponed  until  the  anti-slavery  amendment 
of  the  Constitution  should  be  officially  proclaimed. 
Trumbull  concurred  with  Sherman.  He  said: 

I  do  not  rise,  sir,  with  a  view  of  discussing  the  bill  under  con 
sideration:  it  is  one  relating  to  questions  of  a  very  grave  char 
acter,  and  ought  not  to  pass  without  due  consideration.  The 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  tells  us  that  it  has  been  submitted 
to  distinguished  lawyers,  and  they  all  conceded  its  propriety, 
and  nobody  disputes  the  power  of  Congress  to  pass  it.  Doubt 
less  that  was  their  opinion  and  is  the  opinion  of  the  Senator 
from  Massachusetts.  Perhaps  it  would  be  my  opinion  upon 
investigation.  I  will  not  undertake  to  say,  at  this  time,  what 
the  powers  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  may  be  over 
the  people  in  the  lately  rebellious  states. 

There  was  a  time  between  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion 
and  the  institution  of  any  kind  of  government  in  those  states 
when  it  was  absolutely  necessary  that  some  power  or  other  to 
prevent  anarchy  should  have  control.  The  Senator  from  Dela- 


ANDREW  JOHNSON'S  FIRST  MESSAGE      249 

ware,  and  I  believe  the  Senator  from  Maryland,  said  the  rebel 
lion  was  over,  but  at  the  time  that  the  rebellion  ceased  there 
was  no  organized  government  whatever  in  most  of  the  rebel 
states;  and  was  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  with 
draw  its  forces  and  leave  the  people  in  a  state  of  anarchy  for  the 
time  being?  Surely  not.  As  a  consequence  of  the  rebellion  and 
of  the  authority  clearly  vested  in  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  to  put  down  the  rebellion,  in  my  judgment  the  Govern 
ment  had  the  right,  in  the  absence  of  any  local  governments, 
to  control  and  govern  the  people  till  state  organizations  could 
be  set  up  by  the  people  which  should  be  recognized  by  the 
Federal  Government  as  loyal  and  true  to  the  Constitution.  It 
must  be  so.  It  is  a  necessity  of  the  condition  of  things. 

But,  sir,  I  do  not  propose  at  this  time  to  discuss  this  bill.  It 
is  one,  I  think,  of  too  much  importance  to  be  passed  without 
a  reference  to  some  committee.  The  bill  does  not  go  far  enough, 
if  what  we  have  been  told  to-day  in  regard  to  the  treatment  of 
freedmen  in  the  Southern  States  is  true.  The  bill,  perhaps,  also 
may  be  premature  in  the  sense  stated  by  the  Senator  from 
Ohio.  We  have  not  yet  the  official  information  of  the  adoption 
of  the  constitutional  amendment.  That  that  amendment  will 
be  adopted,  there  is  very  little  question;  until  it  is  adopted 
there  may  be  some  question  (I  do  not  say  how  the  right  is) 
as  to  the  authority  of  Congress  to  pass  such  a  bill  as  this,  but 
after  the  adoption  of  the  constitutional  amendment  there  can 
be  none. 

The  second  clause  of  that  amendment  was  inserted  for  some 
purpose,  and  I  would  like  to  know  of  the  Senator  from  Dela 
ware  for  what  purpose?  Sir,  for  the  purpose,  and  none  other, 
of  preventing  state  legislatures  from  enslaving,  under  any  pre 
tense,  those  whom  the  first  clause  declared  should  be  free.  It 
was  inserted  expressly  for  the  purpose  of  conferring  upon  Con 
gress  authority  by  appropriate  legislation  to  carry  the  first  sec 
tion  into  effect.  What  is  the  first  section?  It  declares  that 
throughout  the  United  States  and  all  places  within  their  juris 
diction  neither  slavery  nor  involuntary  servitude  shall  exist; 
and  then  the  second  section  declares  that  Congress  shall  have 
authority  by  appropriate  legislation  to  carry  this  provision  into 
effect.  What  that  "appropriate  legislation"  is,  is  for  Congress 
to  determine,  and  nobody  else. 


250  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Mr.  Saulsbury  here  interrupted,  saying,  "I  wish  to 
ask  the  honorable  Senator  a  question,  with  his  consent, 
first  answering  his  own.  He  asks  me  for  what  purpose 
that  second  section  was  introduced.  I  do  not  know;  I 
had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  And  now  I  wish  to  ask  the 
honorable  Senator  whether,  when  it  was  before  this  body 
for  adoption,  he  avowed  in  his  advocacy  of  it  that  it  was 
meant  for  such  purposes  as  are  now  claimed." 

Then  the  following  colloquy  ensued: 

MR.  TRUMBULL.  I  never  understood  it  in  any  other  way. 

MR.  SAULSBURY.  Did  you  state  it  to  the  Senate? 

MR.  TRUMBULL.  I  do  not  know  that  I  stated  it  to  the  Senate. 
I  might  as  well  have  stated  to  the  Senator  from  Delaware  that 
the  clause  which  declared  that  Slavery  should  not  exist  any 
where  within  the  United  States  means  that  slavery  should 
not  exist  within  the  United  States !  I  could  make  it  no  plainer 
by  repetition  or  illustration  than  the  statement  itself  makes  it. 
I  reported  from  the  Judiciary  Committee  the  second  section  of 
the  constitutional  amendment  for  the  very  purpose  of  confer 
ring  upon  Congress  authority  to  see  that  the  first  section  was  car 
ried  out  in  good  faith,  and  for  none  other;  and  I  hold  that  un 
der  that  second  section  Congress  will  have  the  authority,  when 
the  constitutional  amendment  is  adopted,  not  only  to  pass  the  bill 
of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  but  a  bill  that  will  be  much 
more  efficient  to  protect  the  freedman  in  his  rights.  We  may,  if 
deemed  advisable,  continue  the  Freedmen's  Bureau,  clothe  it 
with  additional  powers,  and  if  necessary  back  it  up  with  a  mili 
tary  force,  to  see  that  the  rights  of  the  men  made  free  by  the 
first  clause  of  the  constitutional  amendment  are  protected. 
And,  sir,  when  the  constitutional  amendment  shall  have  been 
adopted,  if  the  information  from  the  South  be  that  the  men 
whose  liberties  are  secured  by  it  are  deprived  of  the  privilege  to 
go  and  come  when  they  please,  to  buy  and  sell  when  they  please, 
to  make  contracts  and  enforce  contracts,  I  give  notice  that,  if 
no  one  else  does,  I  shall  introduce  a  bill  and  urge  its  passage 
through  Congress  that  will  secure  to  those  men  every  one  of 
these  rights:  they  would  not  be  freemen  without  them.  It  is 
idle  to  say  that  a  man  is  free  who  cannot  go  and  come  at  pleas- 


ANDREW  JOHNSON'S  FIRST  MESSAGE       251 

ure,  who  cannot  buy  and  sell,  who  cannot  enforce  his  rights. 
These  are  rights  which  the  first  clause  of  the  constitutional 
amendment  meant  to  secure  to  all;  and  to  prevent  the  very 
cavil  which  the  Senator  from  Delaware  suggests  to-day,  that 
Congress  would  not  have  power  to  secure  them,  the  second  sec 
tion  of  the  amendment  was  added. 

There  were  some  persons  who  thought  it  was  unnecessary  to 
add  the  second  clause.  It  was  said  by  some  that  wherever  a 
power  was  conferred  upon  Congress  there  was  also  conferred 
authority  to  pass  the  necessary  laws  to  carry  that  power  into 
effect,  under  the  general  clause  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  which  declares  that  Congres  shall  have  authority  to  pass 
all  laws  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  any  of 
the  powers  conferred  by  the  Constitution.  I  think  Congress 
would  have  had  the  power,  even  without  the  second  clause,  to 
pass  all  laws  necessary  to  give  effect  to  the  provision  making  all 
persons  free;  but  it  was  intended  to  put  it  beyond  cavil  and  dis 
pute,  and  that  was  the  object  of  the  second  clause,  and  I  cannot 
conceive  how  any  other  construction  can  be  put  upon  it. 

Now,  sir,  I  trust  that  this  bill  may  be  referred,  because  I 
think  that  a  bill  of  this  character  should  not  pass  without  delib 
erate  consideration  and  without  going  to  some  of  the  commit 
tees  of  the  Senate.  But  the  object  which  is  had  in  view  by  this 
bill  I  heartily  sympathize  with,  and  when  the  constitutional 
amendment  is  adopted  I  trust  we  may  pass  a  bill,  if  the  action 
of  the  people  in  the  Southern  States  should  make  it  necessary, 
that  will  be  much  more  sweeping  and  efficient  than  the  bill 
under  consideration.  I  will  not  sit  down,  however,  without 
expressing  the  hope  that  no  such  legislation  may  be  necessary. 
I  trust  that  the  people  of  the  South,  who  in  their  state  constitu 
tions  have  declared  that  slavery  shall  no  more  exist  among 
them,  will  by  their  own  legislation  make  that  provision  effec 
tive.  I  trust  there  may  be  a  feeling  among  them  in  harmony 
with  the  feeling  throughout  the  country,  and  which  shall  not 
only  abolish  slavery  in  name,  but  in  fact,  and  that  the  legisla 
tion  of  the  slave  states  in  after  years  may  be  as  effective  to  ele 
vate,  enlighten,  and  improve  the  African  as  it  has  been  in 
past  years  to  enslave  and  degrade  him.1 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1865-66,  i,  42,  43. 


252  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

On  the  18th  of  December  the  adoption  of  the  anti- 
slavery  amendment  was  officially  announced.  On  the 
same  day  the  President  sent  to  the  Senate  two  reports  on 
the  condition  of  affairs,  and  the  state  of  opinion,  in  the 
South,  —  a  very  brief  one  from  Lieutenant-General 
Grant  and  a  much  longer  one  from  Major-General  Carl 
Schurz.  The  former  was  an  incidental  result  of  a  three 
weeks'  tour  of  inspection  for  military  purposes. 

General  Grant  had  spent  one  day  in  Raleigh,  North 
Carolina,  two  days  in  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  and 
one  day  each  in  Savannah  and  Augusta,  Georgia.  The 
substance  of  his  report  was  that  he  did  not  think  it  prac 
ticable  to  withdraw  the  military  at  present;  that  the  citi 
zens  of  the  Southern  States  were  anxious  to  return  to 
self-government  within  the  Union  as  soon  as  possible; 
that  they  were  in  earnest  in  wishing  to  do  what  they  sup 
posed  was  required  of  them  by  the  Government  and  not 
humiliating  to  them  as  citizens. 

I  am  satisfied  [he  said]  that  the  mass  of  thinking  men  of  the 
South  accept  the  present  situation  of  affairs  in  good  faith.  The 
questions  which  have  heretofore  divided  the  sentiment  of  the 
people  of  the  two  sections  —  slavery  and  state  rights,  or  the 
right  of  a  state  to  secede  from  the  Union  —  they  regard  as  hav 
ing  been  settled  forever  by  the  highest  tribunal  —  arms  —  that 
man  can  resort  to.  I  was  pleased  to  learn  from  the  leading 
men  whom  I  met  that  they  not  only  accepted  the  decision 
arrived  at  as  final,  but,  now  that  the  smoke  of  battle  has  cleared 
away  and  time  has  been  given  for  reflection,  that  this  decision 
has  been  a  fortunate  one  for  the  whole  country,  they  receiving 
like  benefits  from  it  with  those  who  opposed  them  in  the  field 
and  in  council. 

He  alluded  to  a  belief  widely  spread  among  the  freed- 
men  that  the  lands  of  their  former  owners  were  to  be 
divided,  in  part  at  least,  among  them  and  that  this  belief 
was  seriously  interfering  with  their  willingness  to  make 
labor  contracts  for  the  ensuing  year.  Then  he  added: 


ANDREW  JOHNSON'S  FIRST  MESSAGE      253 

In  some  instances,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  the  freedman's  mind 
does  not  seem  to  be  disabused  of  the  idea  that  a  freedman  has 
the  right  to  live  without  care  or  provision  for  the  future.  The 
effect  of  the  belief  in  the  division  of  lands  is  idleness  and  accu 
mulation  in  camps,  towns,  and  cities.  In  such  cases,  I  think, 
it  will  be  found  that  vice  and  disease  will  tend  to  the  exter 
mination  or  great  reduction  of  the  colored  race.  It  cannot  be 
expected  that  the  opinions  held  by  men  at  the  South  for  years 
can  be  changed  in  a  day;  and,  therefore,  the  freedmen  require 
for  a  few  years  not  only  laws  to  protect  them,  but  the  fostering 
care  of  those  who  will  give  them  good  counsel  and  on  whom 
they  can  rely. 

General  Schurz's  investigation  had  been  made  at  the 
special  request  of  the  President.  He  had  spent  three 
months  in  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Missis 
sippi,  and  Louisiana.  The  President,  when  appointing 
him,  had  said  that  his  own  policy  of  Reconstruction  was 
merely  experimental  and  subject  to  change  if  it  did  not 
lead  to  satisfactory  results.  Schurz  says  in  his  "  Remin- 
scences"  1  that  when  he  returned  to  Washington  from 
his  journey  he  had  much  difficulty  in  procuring  an  inter 
view  with  the  President;  that  the  latter  received  him 
coldly  and  did  not  ask  him  for  the  results  of  his  investi 
gation;  and  that  when  he  (Schurz)  said  that  he  intended 
to  write  a  report,  the  President  said  that  he  need  not 
take  that  trouble  on  his  account.  Schurz  was  convinced 
that  the  President  wished  to  suppress  his  testimony  and 
he  resolved  that  he  should  not  do  so.  He  accordingly 
wrote  the  report  and  sent  it  in,  with  the  accompanying 
documents,  and  let  his  friends  in  the  Senate  know  that 
he  had  done  so.  On  the  12th  of  December  the  Senate,  on 
Sumner's  motion,  called  for  the  report.  The  President  did 
not  respond  immediately.  In  the  mean  time  he  had  had 
a  conversation  with  General  Grant  whose  views  were  for 

1  Vol.  in,  p.  202. 


254  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

the  most  part  in  accord  with  his  own,  and  he  asked  the 
latter  to  communicate  the  information  he  had  gained 
during  his  Southern  tour  in  order  to  make  it  a  part  of  his 
reply  to  the  Senate  Resolution.  The  reply  occupies  only 
one  page  and  a  half  of  McPherson's  "Reconstruction." 
Schurz's  consists  of  forty-four  printed  pages  of  text  and 
fifty-eight  pages  of  appendix;  Schurz  considered  this  the 
best  paper  he  had  ever  written  on  a  public  matter,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  had  great  influence  in  Con 
gress  and  on  the  Republican  party.  Yet  the  brief  report 
of  Grant  was  the  sounder  of  the  two.  Indeed,  Schurz 
himself  in  his  later  years  had  doubts  as  to  the  validity  of 
his  own  conclusions.1 

Schurz's  conclusions  may  be  summarized  thus: 

If  nothing  were  necessary  but  to  restore  the  machinery  of 
government  in  the  states  lately  in  rebellion  in  point  of  form, 
the  movements  made  to  that  end  by  the  people  of  the  South 
might  be  considered  satisfactory.  But  if  it  is  required  that  the 
Southern  people  should  also  accommodate  themselves  to  the 
result  of  the  war  in  point  of  spirit,  those  movements  fall  far 
short  of  what  must  be  insisted  upon.  .  .  . 

The  emancipation  of  the  slaves  is  submitted  to  only  in  so  far 
as  chattel  slavery  in  the  old  form  could  not  be  kept  up.  But 
although  the  freedman  is  no  longer  considered  the  property  of 
the  individual  master,  he  is  considered  the  slave  of  society,  and 

1  "  It  gives  me  some  satisfaction  now  to  say  that  none  of  those  statements 
of  fact  have  ever  been  effectually  controverted.  I  cannot  speak  with  the  same 
assurance  of  my  conclusions  and  recommendations,  for  they  were  matters  not 
of  knowledge  but  of  judgment.  And  we  stood  at  that  time  face  to  face  with  a 
situation  bristling  with  problems  so  complicated  and  puzzling  that  every  pro 
posed  solution  based  upon  assumptions  ever  so  just,  and  supported  by  reason 
ing  apparently  ever  so  logical,  was  liable  to  turn  out  in  practice  apparently  more 
mischievous  than  any  other.  In  a  great  measure  this  has  actually  come  to 
pass.  ...  I  am  far  from  saying  that  somebody  else  might  not  have  performed 
the  task  much  better  than  I  did.  But  I  do  think  that  this  report  is  the  best 
paper  I  have  ever  written  on  a  public  matter.  The  weakest  part  of  it  is  that 
referring  to  negro  suffrage  —  not  as  if  the  argument,  as  far  as  it  goes,  were  wrong, 
but  as  it  leaves  out  of  consideration  several  aspects  of  the  matter,  the  great 
importance  of  which  has  since  become  apparent."  (Reminiscences,  in,  204,  209.) 


ANDREW  JOHNSON'S  FIRST  MESSAGE      255 

all  independent  state  legislation  will  share  the  tendency  to  make 
him  such.  The  ordinances  abolishing  slavery,  passed  by  the  con 
ventions  under  pressure  of  circumstances,  will  not  be  looked 
upon  as  barring  the  establishment  of  a  new  form  of  servitude. 

Practical  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  Southern  people  to 
deprive  the  negro  of  his  rights  as  a  freeman  may  result  in 
bloody  collisions,  and  will  certainly  plunge  Southern  society 
into  restless  fluctuations  and  anarchical  confusion.  Such  evils 
can  be  prevented  only  by  continuing  the  control  of  the  National 
Government  in  the  states  lately  in  rebellion  until  free  labor  is 
fully  developed  and  firmly  established,  and  the  advantages  and 
blessings  of  the  new  order  of  things  have  disclosed  themselves. 
This  desirable  result  will  be  hastened  by  a  firm  declaration,  on 
the  part  of  the  Government,  that  national  control  in  the  South 
will  not  cease  until  such  results  are  secured.  .  .  . 

The  solution  of  the  problem  would  be  very  much  facilitated 
by  enabling  all  the  loyal  and  free-labor  elements  in  the  South 
to  exercise  a  healthy  influence  upon  legislation.  It  will  hardly 
be  possible  to  secure  the  freedman  against  oppressive  class 
legislation  and  private  persecution,  unless  he  be  endowed  with 
a  certain  measure  of  political  power. 

It  is  fitting  to  notice  here  a  letter  written  by  Hon. 
J.  L.  M.  Curry,  of  Alabama,  to  Senator  Doolittle  and 
read  by  him  in  the  Senate  on  April  6,  1866. 

I  was  [said  Mr.  Curry]  a  secessionist,  for  a  while  a  member 
of  the  Confederate  Congress,  and  afterward  in  the  army,  on  the 
staff  of  generals,  or  in  command  of  a  regiment.  It  would  be 
merest  affectation  to  pretend  that  I  was  not  somewhat  promi 
nent  as  a  secessionist.  .  .  .  Having  laid  the  predicate  for  my 
competency,  I  desire  to  aver,  as  a  gentleman,  and  a  Christian,  I 
hope,  that  with  large  personal  intercourse  with  the  people  and 
those  who  are  suspected  of  rebel  intentions,  I  never  heard  (of 
course,  since  the  surrender)  of  any  conspiracy  or  movement  or 
society  or  purpose,  secret  or  public,  present  or  prospective,  to 
overthrow  the  United  States  Government,  to  resist  its  author 
ity,  to  reenslave  the  negroes,  or  in  any  manner  to  disturb  the  rela 
tions  that  now  exist  between  the  Southern  States  as  constituent 
elements  of  the  Federal  Government  and  that  Government, 
until  I  read  of  such  intentions  recently  in  Northern  newspapers. 


256  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

With  perfect  certainty  as  to  the  truth  of  my  affirmation,  I  can 
state  that  there  is  not  a  sane  or  sober  man  in  Alabama  who 
believes  or  expects  that  African  slavery  will  be  reestablished. 
As  unalterable  facts,  the  people  accept  the  abolition  of  slavery, 
the  extinction  of  the  right  of  secession,  and  the  supremacy  of 
the  Federal  Government.  It  is  as  idle,  a  thousand  times  more 
so,  to  speak  of  another  contemplated  resistance  to  Federal 
authority  as  to  anticipate  the  overthrow  of  the  British  Govern 
ment  by  the  Fenians.1 

Mr.  Curry's  words  were  true,  but  at  the  time  when  they 
were  written  the  weight  of  testimony  available  at  Wash 
ington  and  in  the  North  generally  was  of  a  contrary  sort, 
and  Mr.  Curry  counted  for  no  more  at  the  national 
capital  than  any  other  disarmed  secessionist.  At  a  later 
period  he  became  known  to  the  North  as  one  of  the  great 
benefactors  of  his  time  and  country,  especially  noted  for 
his  labors  in  educating  and  upbuilding  both  races  in  the 
Southern  States.2 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1865-66,  p.  1808. 

2  See  Biography  of  J.  L.  M.  Curry,  by  Alderman  and  Gordon,  New  York, 
1911. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  FREEDMEN'S  BUREAU  AND  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILLS 

ON  January  5,  1866,  Trumbull  introduced  two  mea 
sures  which  engrossed  public  attention  during  the  next 
three  months  and  enlarged  the  parting  of  the  ways 
between  Congress  and  the  President.  These  were  the 
Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill  and  the  Civil  Rights  Bill.  The 
former  was  a  measure  to  continue  in  force  and  amend  an 
act  of  Congress  already  in  operation,  but  which  would 
expire  by  limitation  one  year  after  the  end  of  the  war,  and 
which  had  been  passed  to  provide  for  needy  and  homeless 
whites,  as  well  as  blacks.  It  embraced  also  the  temporary 
disposition  of  abandoned  lands.  Under  its  operation 
General  Sherman  had  assigned  some  thousands  of  acres 
of  abandoned  land  to  freedmen  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
them  employment  and  enabling  them  to  earn  their  own 
living,  and  they  were  in  actual  possession.  Of  course,  the 
title  to  such  lands  would  revert  to  the  former  owners, 
whenever  military  rule  should  come  to  an  end.  The 
Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill  provided  that  in  places  where  the 
ordinary  course  of  judicial  proceedings  had  been  inter 
rupted  by  the  rebellion,  and  where  any  of  the  civil  rights 
enjoyed  by  white  persons  were  denied  to  other  persons 
by  reason  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servi 
tude,  the  latter  should  be  under  military  protection  and 
jurisdiction,  which  should  be  exercised  by  the  Commis 
sioner  of  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  under  orders  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  that  any  person,  who, 
under  color  of  any  state  or  local  law  or  custom,  should 
infringe  such  rights,  should  be  punished  by  fine  or  im- 


258  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

prisonment  or  both.  The  courts  authorized  to  hear  and 
decide  such  cases  were  to  consist  of  the  officers  and  agents 
of  the  Bureau,  without  jury  trial  and  without  appeal; 
but  this  jurisdiction  should  not  exist  in  any  state  after  it 
should  have  been  restored  to  its  constitutional  relations 
to  the  Union. 

The  last-mentioned  feature  of  the  bill  brought  up  the 
question  whether  Congress  had  power  under  the  Con 
stitution  in  time  of  peace  to  pass  laws  for  the  ordinary 
administration  of  justice  in  the  states.  Senator  Hen- 
dricks,  of  Indiana,  had  doubts  on  that  point.  In  a  debate 
on  the  19th  of  January,  1866,  he  said: 

My  judgment  is  that  under  the  second  section  of  the  [thir 
teenth]  constitutional  amendment  we  may  pass  such  a  law  as 
will  secure  the  freedom  declared  in  the  first  section,  but  that  we 
cannot  go  beyond  that  limitation.1 

To  this  Trumbull  replied: 

If  the  construction  put  by  the  Senator  from  Indiana  upon 
the  amendment  be  the  true  one,  and  we  have  merely  taken 
from  the  master  the  power  to  control  the  slave  and  left  him  at 
the  mercy  of  the  state  to  be  deprived  of  his  civil  rights,  the 
trumpet  of  freedom  that  we  have  been  blowing  throughout  the 
land  has  given  an  uncertain  sound,  and  the  promised  freedom 
is  a  delusion.  Such  was  not  the  intention  of  Congress,  which 
proposed  the  Constitutional  amendment  itself.  With  the  de 
struction  of  slavery  necessarily  follows  the  destruction  of  the 
incidents  of  slavery.  When  slavery  was  abolished  slave  codes 
in  its  support  were  abolished  also. 

Those  laws  that  prevented  the  colored  man  going  from  home, 
that  did  not  allow  him  to  buy  or  to  sell,  or  to  make  contracts; 
that  did  not  allow  him  to  own  property;  that  did  not  allow  him 
to  enforce  rights;  that  did  not  allow  him  to  be  educated,  were 
all  badges  of  servitude  made  in  the  interest  of  slavery  and  as 
a  part  of  slavery.  They  never  would  have  been  thought  of  or 
enacted  anywhere  but  for  slavery,  and  when  slavery  falls  they 
1  Cong.  Globe,  1866,  p.  319. 


THE  FREEDMEN'S  BUREAU  BILL  259 

fall  also.  The  policy  of  the  States  where  slavery  has  existed  has 
been  to  legislate  in  its  interest;  and  out  of  deference  to  slav 
ery,  which  was  tolerated  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  even  some  of  the  non-slaveholding  states  passed  laws 
abridging  the  rights  of  the  colored  man  which  were  restraints 
upon  liberty.  When  slavery  goes,  all  this  system  of  legislation, 
devised  in  the  interest  of  slavery  and  for  the  purpose  of  degrad 
ing  the  colored  race,  of  keeping  the  negro  in  ignorance,  of  blot 
ting  out  from  his  very  soul  the  light  of  reason,  if  that  were 
possible,  that  he  might  not  think,  but  know  only,  like  the  ox, 
to  labor,  goes  with  it. 

Now,  when  slavery  no  longer  exists,  the  policy  of  the  Gov 
ernment  is  to  legislate  in  the  interest  of  freedom.  Now,  our 
laws  are  to  be  enacted  with  a  view  to  educate,  improve,  en 
lighten,  and  Christianize  the  negro;  to  make  him  an  independ 
ent  man;  to  teach  him  to  think  and  to  reason;  to  improve  that 
principle  which  the  Great  Author  of  all  has  implanted  in  every 
human  breast,  which  is  susceptible  of  the  highest  cultivation, 
and  destined  to  go  on  enlarging  and  expanding  through  the 
endless  ages  of  eternity. 

If  in  order  to  prevent  slavery  Congress  deem  it  necessary  to 
declare  null  and  void  all  laws  which  will  not  permit  the  colored 
man  to  contract,  which  will  not  permit  him  to  testify,  which 
will  not  permit  him  to  buy  and  sell,  and  to  go  where  he  pleases, 
it  has  the  power  to  do  so,  and  not  only  the  power,  but  it  be 
comes  its  duty  to  do  so.  That  is  what  is  provided  to  be  done  by 
this  bill.  Its  provisions  are  temporary;  but  there  is  another  bill 
on  your  table,  somewhat  akin  to  this,  which  is  intended  to  be 
permanent,  to  extend  to  all  parts  of  the  country,  and  to  protect 
persons  of  all  races  in  equal  civil  rights. 

I  hope  that  the  people  of  the  rebellious  states  themselves 
will  conform  to  the  existing  condition  of  things.  I  do  not  expect 
them  to  change  all  their  opinions  and  prejudices.  I  do  not 
expect  them  to  rejoice  that  they  have  been  discomfited.  But 
they  acknowledge  that  the  war  is  over;  they  agree  that  they  can 
no  longer  contend  in  arms  against  the  Government;  they  say 
they  are  willing  to  submit  to  its  authority;  they  say  in  their 
state  conventions  that  slavery  shall  no  more  exist  among  them. 


260  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

With  the  abolition  of  slavery  should  go  all  the  badges  of  servi 
tude  which  have  been  enacted  for  its  maintenance  and  support. 
Let  them  all  be  abolished.  Let  the  people  of  the  rebellious 
states  now  be  as  zealous  and  as  active  in  the  passage  of  laws  and 
the  inauguration  of  measures  to  elevate,  develop,  and  improve 
the  negro,  as  they  have  hitherto  been  to  enslave  and  degrade 
him.  Let  them  do  justice  and  deal  fairly  with  loyal  Union  men 
in  their  midst,  and  henceforth  be  themselves  loyal,  and  this 
Congress  will  not  have  adjourned  till  the  states  whose  inhabi 
tants  have  been  engaged  in  the  rebellion  will  be  restored  to  their 
former  position  in  the  Union,  and  we  shall  all  be  moving  on  in 
harmony  together.1 

In  short,  Trumbull  held  that  it  was  for  Congress  to 
decide  what  rights  might  be  established  and  enforced  by 
federal  law,  in  addition  to  that  of  emancipation.  That 
this  was  to  be  a  troublesome  question  was  shown  a  little 
later  by  a  colloquy  between  Trumbull  and  Henderson. 
The  latter  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  only  sure  way  to 
protect  the  freedmen  was  to  give  them  the  right  to  vote. 
Trumbull  thought  that,  for  the  present  purpose  of  pro 
viding  them  with  food,  clothing,  and  shelter,  Dr.  Town- 
send's  Sarsaparilla  or  any  other  patent  medicine,  would 
be  as  effectual  as  the  right  of  suffrage.2  Sumner,  a  little 
later,  thought  that  the  right  to  serve  on  juries  and  to 
hold  office  was  among  the  essential  securities  of  freedom, 
and  Thaddeus  Stevens  thought  that  land-ownership  also 
was  necessary.  What  could  be  done  under  the  second 
clause  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  was  the  question, 
either  expressed  or  implied,  underlying  the  whole  con 
troversy  on  Reconstruction  during  the  next  ten  years. 

It  was  commonly  believed  that  the  President  would 
approve  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill;  hence,  when  a  veto 
message  came,  on  the  19th  of  February,  it  was  received 
with  consternation  by  the  Republicans  in  Congress.  He 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1866,  p.  322.  *  Cong.  Globe,  1866,  pp.  745-46. 


THE  FREEDMEN'S  BUREAU  BILL  261 

held  that  the  bill  was  both  unconstitutional  and  inexpe 
dient.  It  had  been  passed  in  the  Senate  by  yeas  37,  nays 
10,  every  Republican  voting  for  it  and  every  Democrat 
against  it.  There  were  three  absentees  when  the  vote 
was  taken:  Cowan  and  Willey,  Republicans,  and  Nes- 
mith,  Democrat.  There  was  ample  margin  here  for 
passing  the  bill  over  the  veto,  if  the  Republicans  could 
hold  together,  but  when  the  second  vote  was  taken, 
February  20,  the  yeas  were  30,  and  the  nays  18,  not  two 
thirds.  So  the  bill  failed.  Eight  Republicans,  Cowan, 
Dixon,  Doolittle,  Morgan,  Norton,  Stewart,  Van  Winkle, 
and  Willey,  had  sided  with  the  President.  There  were 
two  absentees:  Foot  (Rep.),  of  Vermont,  and  Wright 
(Dem.),  of  New  Jersey,  both  sick. 

The  question  of  negro  suffrage  had  not  yet  become 
acute  in  public  discussions.  The  state  of  public  opinion  in 
the  North  was  fairly  set  forth  by  Dr.  C.  H.  Ray  in  a 
private  letter  to  Trumbull  dated  Chicago,  February  7, 
thus: 

If  he  [Johnson]  will  agree  to  your  bill  giving  the  f reedmen  the 
civil  rights  that  the  whites  enjoy,  and  if  he  halts  at  that,  and 
war  is  made  on  him  because  he  will  not  go  to  the  extent  of  negro 
suffrage,  he  will  beat  all  who  assail  him.  The  party  may  be 
split,  the  Government  may  go  out  of  Republican  hands;  but 
Andy  Johnson  will  be  cock-of -the- walk.  The  people,  so  far  as 
I  understand,  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  war  for  the  Union  is 
over.  .  .  .  And  as  for  the  negro,  they  think  that  when  he  has 
the  rights  which  your  bill  will  give  him,  he  must  be  contented 
to  look  upon  the  elective  franchise  as  a  something  to  be  earned 
by  giving  evidence  of  his  fitness  therefor. 

The  excitement  caused  by  the  veto  of  the  Freedmen's 
Bureau  Bill  was  still  further  intensified  by  a  struggle  on 
a  side  issue,  in  which  Trumbull  took  the  leading  part, 
and  which  involved  the  seat  of  the  Democratic  Senator 
Stockton,  of  New  Jersey.  He  had  been  chosen  by  the 


262  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Legislature  of  his  state  in  joint  meeting  on  March  15, 
1865.  The  Democrats  had  a  majority  of  five  in  the  legis 
lature,  but  had  been  unable,  at  first,  to  agree  upon  a  can 
didate.  Accordingly,  the  joint  meeting,  by  a  vote  of  41 
to  40,  adopted  a  rule  that  any  person  receiving  a  plurality 
of  the  votes  cast  for  Senator  should  be  declared  elected. 
In  pursuance  of  this  rule,  a  vote  was  taken  by  roll-call 
and  John  P.  Stockton  received  40  votes,  John  C.  Ten 
Eyck  received  37  votes,  and  there  were  4  scattering,  the 
total  number  being  81.  Stockton  was  accordingly  de 
clared  elected  without  objection,  and  the  joint  meeting 
adjourned  sine  die. 

When  Congress  assembled  in  December,  Stockton's 
certificate  of  election,  in  due  form,  was  presented  and  he 
was  sworn  in.  A  protest,  however,  had  been  signed  by 
all  the  Republican  members  of  the  New  Jersey  legislature 
and  this  was  presented  by  Senator  Cowan  by  request.  It 
affirmed  that  Stockton  had  not  received  the  votes  of  a 
majority  of  the  members,  as  required  by  a  law  of  the 
state.  The  protest  and  credentials  were  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  which  consisted  of  five 
Republicans  (Trumbull,  Harris,  Clark,  Poland,  and 
Stewart)  and  one  Democrat  (Hendricks). 

Trumbull,  in  behalf  of  the  committee,  reported  that 
Stockton  was  duly  elected  and  entitled  to  the  seat.  All 
the  members  concurred  except  Clark,  of  New  Hampshire. 
Regarding  the  law  of  the  state,  which  required  a  majority 
to  elect,  the  report  said  that  the  state  constitution 
denominated  and  recognized  the  two  houses,  either  in 
joint  session,  or  separately,  as  "The  Legislature";  that 
the  legislature,  in  either  capacity,  had  the  right  to  make 
its  own  rules;  and  that  since  a  majority  had  voted  for  the 
plurality  rule  the  subsequent  action  taken  in  pursuance 
of  it  was  the  act  of  the  majority.  There  was  room  for  an 


THE  FREEDMEN'S  BUREAU  BILL  263 

honest  difference  of  opinion,  since  the  enactment  of  a  law 
required  action  by  the  two  houses  separately  and  a  sub 
mission  of  the  same  to  the  governor.  On  this  point,  how 
ever,  Trumbull  quoted  from  "Story  on  the  Constitution" 
to  the  effect  that,  since  the  governor  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  choice  of  Senators,  he  was  eliminated  from 
consideration  in  any  and  all  steps  leading  thereto. 

It  happened  at  this  time  that  one  Republican  Senator, 
Foot,  of  Vermont,  and  one  Democrat,  Wright,  of  New 
Jersey,  were  absent  by  reason  of  serious  illness.  Wright 
had  gone  to  his  home  in  Newark  for  treatment,  but, 
before  going,  had  paired  with  Morrill,  of  Maine,  on  the 
question  of  his  colleague's  contested  election.  When  the 
debate  was  drawing  to  a  close,  severe  pressure  was  put 
upon  Morrill  by  his  radical  friends  in  the  Senate  to 
declare  his  pair  off,  and  to  vote  against  Stockton.  When 
the  vote  was  taken,  on  concurring  in  the  report  of  the 
Judiciary  Committee,  the  yeas  were  21  and  the  nays  20. 
Stockton  himself  had  not  voted.  Twelve  of  the  affirma 
tive  votes  were  Republicans.  Before  the  result  was  an 
nounced,  Senator  Morrill,  who  had  withheld  his  vote, 
asked  the  Secretary  to  call  his  name,  and  then  voted  in 
the  negative,  making  a  tie.  Then  Senator  Stockton  said 
that  Morrill  had  been  paired  with  his  colleague  on  this 
question,  and  that  Wright  had  told  him  before  he  went 
away  that  he  would  not  go  home  at  all  without  first 
obtaining  a  pair  on  this  question.  Under  such  circum 
stances  he  (Stockton)  felt  at  liberty  to  vote  in  his  own 
behalf.  So  he  directed  the  Secretary  to  call  his  name  and 
he  voted  in  the  affirmative.  Morrill  admitted  that  the 
pair  had  been  made,  but  said  that  when  it  was  made  he 
had  not  contemplated  that  it  would  run  so  long  (seven 
weeks),  and  that  he  therefore  felt  at  liberty  to  vote.  He 
added,  with  apparent  satisfaction,  that  his  vote  did  not 


264  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

change  the  result.  This  was  true,  but  Stockton's  vote  did 
change  it  to  his  own  disadvantage. 

The  result  was  announced;  yeas  22,  nays  21.  If 
Stockton  had  not  voted,  the  result  would  have  been  a  tie, 
and  he  would  have  held  his  seat.  His  opponents  had 
exhausted  their  resources  and  there  was  no  parliamentary 
way  of  trying  the  case  over  again.  By  casting  a  vote  in  his 
own  case  he  gave  them  a  weapon  with  which  to  renew  the 
fight. 

When  the  Senate  reassembled,  Sumner  moved  that  the 
journal  be  corrected  by  striking  out  Stockton's  name 
from  the  vote  last  taken,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  no 
right  to  vote  in  his  own  case.  The  subject  was  thus 
brought  up  again,  and  the  result  was  a  reconsideration  of 
the  vote  of  the  previous  day.  Trumbull  concurred  in  the 
view  that  the  question  before  the  Senate  was  judicial  in 
its  nature  and  that,  therefore,  Stockton  could  not  vote 
when  his  own  seat  was  in  question. 

On  the  last  day  of  the  debate  a  telegram  was  received 
from  Senator  Wright  requesting  a  postponement  of  the 
vote  till  the  following  day,  saying  that  he  would  then  be 
in  his  seat  or  would  not  ask  further  delay.  His  request 
was  supported  by  Reverdy  Johnson  in  a  pathetic  appeal 
to  the  fraternal  feeling  and  gentlemanly  instincts  of 
Senators;  but  Clark,  who  led  the  opposition,  objected 
strenuously  to  any  postponement,  although  two  post 
ponements  had  been  previously  granted  on  account  of  his 
own  illness. 

On  the  motion  to  postpone  till  the  following  day  the 
vote  was,  yeas  21,  nays  22.  Senator  Dixon,  a  Republican 
supporter  of  Stockton,  had  fallen  sick  and  was  absent. 
Senator  Stewart,  another  Republican  supporter,  was 
absent  when  the  vote  was  taken,  although  he  had  been  in 
the  Senate  Chamber  earlier  in  the  day;  he  had  dodged. 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL  265 

All  the  members  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  who  had 
signed  the  original  report  in  favor  of  Stockton,  voted  for 
him  to  the  last,  except  Stewart.  If  he  and  Dixon  had 
been  present,  the  final  vote  would  have  been  postponed, 
and  in  all  probability  Stockton  would  have  retained  his 
seat,  although  Morgan,  of  New  York,  who  had  voted  for 
postponement,  changed  on  the  very  last  vote,  which 
was  against  Stockton,  20  to  23. 

An  impartial  reader  of  the  whole  debate,  in  the  calm 
atmosphere  of  the  present  day,  will  be  apt  to  conclude 
that  partisan  zeal  rather  than  judicial  fairness  was  the 
deciding  factor  in  Stockton's  case,  and  that  the  heat 
developed  in  the  contest  was  due  to  a  desire  on  the  part  of 
the  majority  to  gain  a  two-thirds  vote  in  order  to  over 
come  the  President's  vetoes. 

Consideration  of  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  began  on  the 
29th  of  January,  on  an  amendment  proposed  by  Trumbull 
which  provided  that  all  persons  of  African  descent  born 
in  the  United  States  should  be  citizens  thereof,  and  there 
should  be  no  discrimination  in  civil  rights  or  immunities 
among  the  inhabitants  of  any  state  or  territory  on  account 
of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  slavery.  The  ques 
tion  was  not  merely  whether  this  provision  was  just,  but 
whether  Congress  had  power  under  the  Constitution  to 
pass  laws  for  the  ordinary  administration  of  justice  in  the 
states.  On  this  point  Trumbull  said: 

Under  the  constitutional  amendment  which  we  have  now 
adopted,  and  which  declares  that  slavery  shall  no  longer  exist, 
and  which  authorizes  Congress  by  appropriate  legislation  to 
carry  this  provision  into  effect,  I  hold  that  we  have  a  right  to 
pass  any  law  which,  in  our  judgment,  is  deemed  appropriate, 
and  which  will  accomplish  the  end  in  view,  secure  freedom  to  all 
people  in  the  United  States.  The  various  state  laws  to  which 
I  have  referred,  —  and  there  are  many  others,  —  although 


266  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

they  do  not  make  a  man  an  absolute  slave,  yet  deprive  him  of 
the  rights  of  a  freeman;  and  it  is  perhaps  difficult  to  draw  the 
precise  line,  to  say  where  freedom  ceases  and  slavery  begins,  but 
a  law  that  does  not  allow  a  colored  person  to  go  from  one  county 
to  another  is  certainly  a  law  in  derogation  of  the  rights  of  a 
freeman.  A  law  that  does  not  allow  a  colored  person  to  hold  pro 
perty,  does  not  allow  him  to  teach,  does  not  allow  him  to  preach, 
is  certainly  a  law  in  violation  of  the  rights  of  a  freeman,  and 
being  so  may  properly  be  declared  void. 

Without  going  elaborately  into  this  question,  as  my  design 
was  to  state  rather  than  to  argue  the  grounds  upon  which  I 
place  this  bill,  I  will  only  add  on  this  branch  of  the  subject  that 
the  clause  of  the  Constitution,  under  which  we  are  called  to 
act,  in  my  judgment  vests  Congress  with  the  discretion  of 
selecting  that  "appropriate  legislation"  which  it  is  believed 
will  best  accomplish  the  end  and  prevent  slavery. 

Then,  sir,  the  only  question  is,  will  this  bill  be  effective  to 
accomplish  the  object,  for  the  first  section  will  amount  to  noth 
ing  more  than  the  declaration  in  the  Constitution  itself  unless 
we  have  the  machinery  to  carry  it  into  effect.  A  law  is  good  for 
nothing  without  a  penalty,  without  a  sanction  to  it,  and  that  is 
to  be  found  in  the  other  sections  of  the  bill.  The  second  section 
provides : 

"That  any  person,  who  under  color  of  any  law,  statute,  ordi 
nance,  regulation,  or  custom,  shall  subject  or  cause  to  be  sub 
jected  any  inhabitant  of  any  state  or  territory  to  the  depriva 
tion  of  any  right  secured  or  protected  by  this  act,  or  to  different 
punishment,  pains,  or  penalties  on  account  of  such  person  hav 
ing  at  any  time  been  held  in  a  condition  of  slavery  or  involun 
tary  servitude,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crime  whereof  the 
party  shall  have  been  duly  convicted,  or  by  reason  of  his  color 
or  race,  than  is  prescribed  for  the  punishment  of  white  persons, 
shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  on  conviction 
shall  be  punished  by  fine  not  exceeding  $1000,  or  imprisonment 
not  exceeding  one  year,  or  both,  in  the  discretion  of  the  court." 

This  is  the  valuable  section  of  the  bill  so  far  as  protecting 
the  rights  of  freedmen  is  concerned.  That  they  are  entitled  to 
be  free  we  know.  Being  entitled  to  be  free  under  the  Constitu 
tion,  that  we  have  a  right  to  enact  such  legislation  as  will  make 
them  free,  we  believe;  and  that  can  only  be  done  by  punishing 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL  267 

those  who  undertake  to  deny  them  their  freedom.  When  it 
comes  to  be  understood  in  all  parts  of  the  United  States  that 
any  person  who  shall  deprive  another  of  any  right,  or  subject 
him  to  any  punishment  in  consequence  of  his  color  or  race,  will 
expose  himself  to  fine  and  imprisonment,  I  think  all  such  acts 
will  soon  cease.1 

Senator  Saulsbury,  of  Delaware,  contended  that  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  had  given  no 
power  to  Congress  to  confer  upon  free  negroes  rights  and 
privileges  which  had  not  been  conceded  to  them  by  the 
states  where  they  resided.  He  said  that  in  Maryland 
about  one  half  of  the  colored  population  were  free  before 
the  Thirteenth  Amendment  was  adopted,  that  in  Dela 
ware  the  free  negroes  largely  outnumbered  the  slaves,  and 
that  in  Kentucky  the  free  negroes  were  a  large  part  of  the 
population.  All  that  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  did  was 
to  put  the  slave  population  on  the  same  footing  on  which 
the  free  negroes  already  stood.  Congress  had  no  power 
to  legislate  on  the  status  of  free  negroes  in  the  several 
states  before  the  Civil  War.  But  the  powers  of  Congress 
in  this  respect  had  not  been  enlarged  by  anything  in  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment.  That  amendment  had  merely 
said  that  the  condition  of  slavery  —  the  condition  in 
which  one  man  belongs  to  another,  which  gives  that  other 
a  right  to  appropriate  the  profits  of  his  labor  to  his  own 
use  and  to  control  his  person  —  should  no  longer  exist. 
Those  who  voted  for  the  amendment  might  have  contem 
plated  a  larger  exercise  of  power  by  Congress  than  mere 
emancipation,  but  they  did  not  avow  it  on  the  floor  of  the 
Senate  when  the  measure  was  pending.^  He  continued: 

The  honorable  Senator  from  Illinois  has  avowed  that  he  does 
not  propose  by  this  bill  to  confer  any  political  power.  I  have 
no  doubt  the  Senator  is  perfectly  honest  in  that  declaration, 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1866,  p.  475. 


268  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

and  that  he  personally  does  not  mean  to  give  any  political 
power,  for  instance,  the  right  of  voting,  not  only  to  the  freed- 
men,  but  to  the  whole  race  of  negroes;  but  the  intention  of  the 
Senator  in  framing  this  bill  will  not  govern  its  construction, 
and  I  have  not  the  least  doubt  that,  should  it  be  enacted  and 
become  a  law,  it  will  receive  very  generally,  if  not  universally, 
the  construction  that  it  does  confer  a  right  of  voting  in  the 
states;  and  why  do  I  say  so?  Says  the  Senator,  "  It  confers  no 
political  power;  I  do  not  mean  that."  The  question  is  not  what 
the  Senator  means,  but  what  is  the  legitimate  meaning  and 
import  of  the  terms  employed  in  the  bill.  Its  words  are, 
"  That  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  in  civil  rights  or  immu 
nities."  What  are  civil  rights?  What  are  the  rights  which  you, 
I,  or  any  citizen  of  this  country  enjoy?  What  is  the  basis,  the 
foundation  of  them  all?  They  are  divisible  into  two  classes; 
one,  those  rights  which  we  derive  from  nature,  and  the  other 
those  rights  which  we  derive  from  government.  I  will  admit 
that  you  may  divide  and  subdivide  the  rights  which  you  derive 
from  government  into  different  classifications;  you  may  call 
some,  for  the  sake  of  convenience  and  more  definiteness  of 
meaning,  political;  you  may  call  others  civil. 

What  is  property?  It  has  been  judicially  decided  that  the 
elective  franchise  is  property.  Leaving  out  the  question  of  vot 
ing,  however,  as  a  question  of  property,  is  it  not  true  that, 
under  our  republican  form  and  system  of  government,  the  ballot 
is  one  of  the  means  by  which  property  is  secured?  Your  bill 
gives  to  these  persons  every  security  for  the  protection  of  per 
son  and  property  which  a  white  man  has.  What  is  one  means 
and  a  very  important  means  of  securing  the  rights  of  person 
and  property?  It  is  a  voice  in  the  Government  which  makes 
the  laws  regulating  and  governing  the  right  of  property.  Under 
our  system  of  government  —  mark  you,  I  do  not  say  that  it  is 
so  under  all  governments  —  one  of  the  strongest  and  most 
efficient  means  for  the  security  of  person  and  property  is  a  par 
ticipation  in  the  selection  of  those  who  make  the  laws.  It  was 
therefore  that  I  thought  that  the  honorable  Senator  when  he 
framed  this  bill  meant  to  give  to  these  persons  the  right  of  vot 
ing;  and  I  should  still  think  so  but  for  his  personal  disclaimer 
of  any  such  object. 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL  269 

Senator  Van  Winkle  (Unionist),  of  West  Virginia,  con 
tended  that  negroes  were  not  citizens  of  the  United  States 
and  could  not  be  made  such  by  act  of  Congress,  or  by 
anything  short  of  constitutional  amendment.  He  was 
opposed  to  the  introduction  of  inferior  races  into  the 
ranks  of  citizenship,  but  if  the  Constitution  should  be 
changed  in  the  mode  provided  for  its  amendment  so  as  to 
introduce  negroes,  Indians,  Chinese,  and  other  alien  races 
to  citizenship,  he  would  endeavor  to  do  his  whole  duty 
toward  them  by  recognizing  them  as  citizens  in  every 
respect. 

Senator  Cowan  held  that  the  second  clause  of  the  Thir 
teenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  was  limited  to  the 
breaking  of  the  bond  by  which  the  negro  slave  was  held 
by  his  master.  It  was  not  intended  to  revolutionize  all  the 
laws  of  the  various  states.  The  bill  under  consideration 
would  not  only  repeal  statutes  of  Pennsylvania,  but 
would  subject  the  judges  of  her  courts  to  criminal  prose 
cution,  for  enforcing  her  own  laws.  He  (Cowan)  was  will 
ing  to  vote  for  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  giving 
Congress  the  power  to  secure  to  all  men  of  every  race, 
color,  and  condition  their  natural  rights  to  life,  liberty, 
and  property,  but  the  bill  under  consideration  was  an 
attempt  to  do,  without  any  power,  that  which  it  was  very 
questionable  whether  we  ought  to  do,  even  if  we  had  the 
power.  Cowan  concluded  by  arguing  that  Congress  ought 
not  to  enact  laws  affecting  the  Southern  States  so  radi 
cally,  when  they  were  not  represented  in  Congress. 

Senator  Howard,  of  Michigan,  supported  the  bill  in  a 
speech  of  great  force  from  the  humanitarian  point  of 
view,  but  did  not  dwell  upon  the  constitutional  question, 
except  to  affirm  that  he,  as  a  member  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee  which  had  reported  the  Thirteenth  Amend 
ment,  had  intended,  by  the  second  clause  thereof,  to 


270  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

empower  Congress  to  enact  such  measures  as  the  pending 
Civil  Rights  Bill. 

Garrett  Davis,  of  Kentucky,  contended  that  negroes 
could  not  be  made  citizens  of  the  United  States  under  the 
power  granted  to  Congress  to  pass  naturalization  laws, 
since  naturalization  applied  only  to  foreigners.  Negroes 
born  in  this  country  were  not  foreigners. 

Trumbull  replied  that  free  negroes  were  citizens  under 
the  fourth  article  of  the  Confederation,  prior  to  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Constitution  and  that  an  attempt  to  exclude 
them  from  citizenship  on  the  25th  of  June,  1778,  received 
only  two  votes  in  the  Congress  of  the  Confederation.  He 
quoted  a  decision  of  Judge  Gaston,  of  North  Carolina, 
that  free  negroes  born  in  that  state  were  citizens  of  the 
state  and  that  slaves  manumitted  there  became  citizens 
by  the  fact  of  manumission. 

Reverdy  Johnson  held  that  it  was  as  competent  for 
Congress  to  strike  out  the  word  "white"  from  our  natu 
ralization  law  as  it  had  been  for  a  former  Congress  to 
insert  that  word.  In  that  case  a  negro  migrating  from 
Africa  to  the  United  States  might  be  made  a  citizen 
exactly  like  an  immigrant  from  Europe. 

Garrett  Davis  denied  this,  saying: 

This  is  a  government  and  a  political  organization  by  white 
people.  It  is  a  principle  of  that  Government  and  that  organi 
zation,  before  and  below  the  Constitution,  that  nobody  but 
white  people  are  or  can  be  parties  to  it. 

The  colloquy  between  Senators  Johnson  and  Davis 
continued  until  the  latter  affirmed  that  the  making  of 
negroes  citizens  by  any  process  whatsoever  was  "revolu 
tionary,"  as  destructive  to  our  Government  as  would  be  a 
bill  establishing  a  monarchy,  or  declaring  that  the  Presi 
dent  should  hold  office  for  life.1 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1866,  p.  530. 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL  271 

The  debate  continued  till  February  2,  Senators 
Guthrie,  Hendricks,  and  Cowan  opposing  the  bill  and 
Trumbull,  Fessenden,  and  Wilson  supporting  it.  The 
vote  was  then  taken  and  resulted,  yeas  33,  nays  12,  absent 
5.  It  went  to  the  House,  where  it  encountered  unexpected 
opposition  from  Bingham,  of  Ohio,  a  radical  Republican, 
who  said: 

Now  what  does  this  bill  propose?  To  reform  the  whole  civil 
and  criminal  code  of  every  State  Government  by  declaring  that 
there  shall  be  no  discrimination  between  citizens  on  account  of 
race  or  color  in  civil  rights,  or  in  the  penalties  prescribed  by 
their  laws.  I  humbly  bow  before  the  majesty  of  justice,  as  I 
bow  before  the  majesty  of  that  God  whose  attribute  it  is,  and 
therefore  declare  that  there  should  be  no  such  inequality  or 
discrimination  even  in  the  penalties  for  crime,  but  what  power 
have  you  to  correct  it?  That  is  the  question.  You  further  say 
that  in  the  courts  of  justice  of  the  several  states  there  shall,  as  to 
the  qualifications  of  witnesses,  be  no  discrimination  on  account 
of  race  or  color.  I  agree  that  as  to  persons  who  appreciate  the 
obligation  of  an  oath  —  and  no  others  should  be  permitted  to 
testify  —  there  should  be  no  such  discrimination.  But  whence 
do  you  derive  power  to  cure  it  by  congressional  enactment? 
There  should  be  no  discrimination  among  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  several  states,  of  like  sex,  age,  and  con 
dition,  in  regard  to  the  franchises  of  office.  But  such  a  discrimi 
nation  does  exist  in  nearly  every  state.  How  do  you  propose  to 
cure  all  this?  By  a  congressional  enactment?  How  ?  Not  by  say 
ing  in  so  many  words  (which  would  be  the  bold  and  direct  way 
of  meeting  this  issue)  that  every  discrimination  of  this  kind, 
whether  existing  in  state  constitution  or  state  law,  is  hereby 
abolished.  You  propose  to  make  it  a  penal  offence  for  the  judges 
of  the  states  to  obey  the  constitution  and  laws  of  their  states, 
and  for  their  obedience  thereto  to  punish  them  by  fine  and 
imprisonment  as  felons.  I  deny  your  power  to  do  this.  You 
cannot  make  an  official  act  done  under  color  of  law  and  with 
out  criminal  intent  and  from  a  sense  of  duty,  a  crime.1 

The  only  Republican  member  of  the  House,  from  the 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1866,  p.  1293. 


272  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

non-slaveholding  states,  who  sided  with  Bingham,  was 
Raymond,  of  New  York.  The  House  passed  the  bill  by 
yeas  111,  nays  38. 

On  the  27th  of  March,  the  President  returned  the  bill  to 
the  Senate  without  his  approval.  He  vetoed  it  on  grounds 
of  inexpediency  and  unconstitutionality.  His  arguments 
were  substantially  the  same  as  those  of  Senators  Saulsbury 
and  Cowan. 

Trumbull  replied  to  the  veto  message  in  a  speech  of 
great  power  which  occupies  five  pages  of  the  Congressional 
Globe.  He  took  up  and  answered  the  President's  objections 
seriatim.  These  details  need  not  now  be  repeated.  There 
was  one  of  a  personal  character,  however,  which  calls  for 
notice.  He  said  that  he  had  endeavored  to  meet  the  Presi 
dent's  wishes  in  the  preparation  of  both  the  bills,  and  had 
called  upon  him  twice  and  had  given  him  copies  of  them 
before  they  were  introduced  and  asked  his  cooperation  in 
order  to  make  them  satisfactory.  In  short,  he  had  done 
everything  possible  to  avoid  a  conflict  between  the  execu 
tive  and  legislative  branches  of  the  Government,  and 
since  he  had  been  assured  that  the  President's  aims,  like 
his  own,  were  in  the  direction  of  peace  and  concord,  he  was 
amazed  when  they  were  vetoed.  At  the  conclusion  of  his 
speech  he  referred  briefly  to  the  constitutional  objection 
to  the  bill  saying: 

If  the  bill  now  before  us,  which  goes  no  further  than  to  secure 
civil  rights  to  the  freedmen,  cannot  be  passed,  then  the  con 
stitutional  amendment  proclaiming  freedom  to  all  the  inhabi 
tants  of  the  land  is  a  cheat  and  a  delusion. 

The  floor  and  galleries  of  the  Senate  Chamber  were 
crowded  during  the  delivery  of  the  speech  and  the  roll-call 
followed  immediately,  resulting:  yeas  33,  nays  15,  more 
than  two  thirds.  The  closing  scene  was  thus  described  in  a 
Washington  letter  to  the  Nation,  April  12: 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL  273 

After  three  days  of  extremely  ardent  debate  signalized  by  a 
speech  of  singular  cogency  and  power  from  Senator  Trumbull, 
the  father  of  the  bill,  the  vote  was  reached  about  7  o'clock  on 
Friday  evening.  When  the  end  of  the  roll  was  reached  and 
Vice-President  Foster  announced  the  result,  nearly  the  whole 
Senate  and  auditory  were  carried  off  their  feet  and  joined  in  a 
tumultuous  outburst  of  cheering  such  as  was  never  heard  within 
those  walls  before. 

The  veto  of  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  and  the  struggle  over 
its  passage  the  second  time  precipitated  the  exciting  con 
test  at  the  polls  in  the  autumn  of  1866.  In  that  campaign 
Trumbull  held  the  foremost  position  in  the  Republican 
column.  Whether  it  was  possible  to  avoid  the  conflict  we 
cannot  now  say.  It  was  most  desirable  that  the  party  in 
power  should  march  all  one  way,  and  hence  that  the  Presi 
dent  should  respond  to  the  friendly  overtures  of  the  lead 
ers  in  Congress.  When  he  found  that  he  could  not  ap 
prove  the  two  bills  that  the  Senator  had  placed  in  his 
hands  for  examination,  he  ought  to  have  sent  for  him  and 
pointed  out  his  objections  and  at  all  events  expressed  re 
gret  that  he  could  not  concur  with  him  in  the  particulars 
where  they  disagreed.  Then  there  might  have  been  mutual 
concessions  leading  to  harmony.  In  any  event,  there  would 
have  been  no  sting  left  behind,  no  hard  feeling,  no  sense 
of  injury,  and  perhaps  no  rupture  in  the  party.  That 
was  not  Johnson's  way.  He  lacked  savoirfaire.  He  was 
combative  by  nature.  He  not  only  made  personal  enemies 
unnecessarily,  but  he  alienated  thousands  who  wished  to 
be  his  friends.1  "Many  persons,"  says  a  not  unfriendly 
critic,  "whose  feelings  were  proof  against  the  appeals 
made  on  behalf  of  the  freedmen  and  loyalists  were  carried 

1  "Doolittle  tells  me  he  wrote  the  President  a  letter  on  the  morning  of  the 
22d  of  February,  knowing  there  was  to  be  a  gathering  which  would  call  at  the 
White  House,  entreating  him  not  to  address  the  crowd.  But,  said  D.,  he  did 
speak  and  his  speech  lost  him  two  hundred  thousand  votes."  (Diary  of  Gideon 
Wettes,  u,  647.) 


274  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

over  to  the  side  of  Congress  by  sheer  disgust  at  Johnson's 
performances.  The  alienation,  by  the  President,  of  this 
essentially  thoughtful  and  conservative  element  of  the 
Northern  voters  was  as  disastrous  and  inexcusable  as  the 
alienation  of  those  moderate  men  in  Congress  whom  he 
had  repelled  by  his  narrow  and  obstinate  policy  in  regard 
to  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  and  Civil  Rights  Bills.  It  was 
again  demonstrated  that  Andrew  Johnson  was  not  a 
statesman  of  national  size  in  such  a  crisis  as  existed  in 
1866."  * 

On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  admitted  that  Johnson 
was  within  his  constitutional  right  in  vetoing  the  bills 
without  previously  consulting  anybody  in  Congress. 

The  Civil  Rights  Act  came  before  the  Circuit  Court  of 
the  United  States  twice,  soon  after  it  was  enacted,  and  in 
both  instances  was  held  to  be  constitutional.  The  circuit 
courts  were  then  presided  over  by  Justices  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  In  the  case  of  United  States  v.  Rhodes,  Seventh 
Circuit,  District  of  Kentucky,  1866,  before  Justice 
Swayne,  the  act  was  pronounced  constitutional  in  all  its 
provisions,  and  held  to  be  an  appropriate  method  of  exer 
cising  the  power  conferred  on  Congress  by  the  Thirteenth 
Amendment. 

The  other  case  was  the  Matter  of  Turner,  Fourth  Cir 
cuit,  Maryland,  October  Term,  1867,  before  Chief  Justice 
Chase.  This  case  was  submitted  to  the  court  without 
argument.  The  Chief  Justice  expressed  regret  that  it  was 
not  accompanied  by  arguments  of  counsel,  but  he  decided 
that  the  act  was  constitutional  and  that  it  applied  to  all 
conditions  prohibited  by  it,  whether  originating  in  trans 
actions  before,  or  since,  its  enactment.2 

1  W.  A.  Dunning,  Reconstruction,  p.  82. 

2  Both  of  these  cases  are  reported  in  the  first  volume  of  Abbott's  Circuit 
Court  Reports. 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL  275 

If  either  of  these  cases  had  been  taken  to  the  Supreme 
Court  on  appeal,  at  that  time,  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of 
1866  would  doubtless  have  been  upheld  by  that  body;  yet 
in  October,  1882,  the  court  held  by  unanimous  vote  that 
none  of  the  latest  amendments  of  the  Constitution  (the 
Thirteenth,  Fourteenth,  and  Fifteenth)  did  more  than  put 
prohibition  on  the  action  of  the  states.  No  state  should 
have  slavery;  no  state  should  make  any  law  to  abridge 
the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States;  no  state  should  deny  the  right  of  voting  by  reason 
of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servitude.  The 
power  of  Congress  to  go  into  the  states  to  enforce  the 
criminal  law  against  individuals  had  not  been  granted  in 
any  of  these  amendments.  It  could  not  be  affirmed  that 
the  second  section  of  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  gave 
power  to  Congress  to  legislate  for  the  states  as  to  other 
matters  than  actual  slavery.  But  the  Civil  Rights  Act 
applied  to  all  the  states  —  to  those  where  slavery  had 
never  existed  as  well  as  to  those  where  it  had  been 
recently  abolished.1 

The  act  which  the  court  in  October,  1882,  pronounced 
unconstitutional  was  the  Anti-Ku-Klux  Act  of  1871. 
Trumbull  himself  spoke  and  voted  against  that  act  be 
lieving  it  to  be  unconstitutional,  as  we  shall  see  later. 
He  drew  the  line  somewhere  between  the  two  acts.  The 
judges  participating  in  the  decision  in  the  Harris  case 
were  Chief  Justice  Waite  and  Associate  Justices  Miller, 
Bradley,  Woods,  Gray,  Field,  Harlan,  Matthews,  and 
Blatchford. 

One  year  later  the  court  held  that  the  Equal  Rights  Act 
of  March  1, 1875,  which  gave  to  all  persons  full  and  equal 
enjoyment  of  accommodations  and  privileges  of  inns, 
public  conveyances,  theatres,  and  other  places  of  public 

1   United  States  v.  Harris,  106  U.S.  629. 


276  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

amusement,  common  schools  and  public  institutions  of 
learning  or  benevolence  supported  in  whole  or  in  part  by 
general  taxation,  was  unconstitutional.  The  Supreme 
Court  still  consisted  of  the  Justices  above  named.1 
It  held  that  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitu 
tion  related  only  to  slavery  and  its  incidents  and  that  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  was  merely  prohibitory  on  the 
states;  that  is,  that  it  did  not  confer  additional  powers 
upon  Congress,  but  merely  forbade  discriminating  acts 
on  the  part  of  the  states.  The  opinion  of  the  court  was 
delivered  by  Justice  Bradley.  The  only  dissenting  opinion 
was  given  by  Justice  Harlan,  of  Kentucky,  who  held  that 
the  Thirteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  was  not 
restricted  to  the  prohibition  of  slavery,  but  that  it  con 
ferred  upon  Congress  the  power  to  make  freedom  effectual 
to  the  former  victims  of  slavery.  He  said: 

The  Thirteenth  Amendment,  it  is  conceded,  did  something 
more  than  to  prohibit  slavery  as  an  institution  resting  upon 
distinctions  of  race  and  upheld  by  positive  law.  My  brethren 
admit  that  it  established  and  decreed  universal  civil  freedom 
throughout  the  United  States.  But  did  the  freedom  thus  estab 
lished  involve  nothing  more  than  the  exemption  from  actual 
slavery?  Was  nothing  more  intended  than  to  forbid  one  man 
from  owning  another  as  property?  Was  it  the  purpose  of  the 
nation  simply  to  destroy  the  institution  and  then  remit  the 
race,  theretofore  held  in  bondage,  to  the  several  states  for  such 
protection  in  their  civil  rights,  necessarily  growing  out  of  free 
dom,  as  those  states  in  their  discretion  might  choose  to  provide? 
Were  the  states,  against  whose  protest  the  institution  was  de 
stroyed,  to  be  left  free,  so  far  as  national  interference  was  con 
cerned,  to  make  or  allow  discriminations  against  that  race, 
as  such,  in  the  enjoyment  of  those  fundamental  rights  which 
by  universal  concession  inhere  in  a  state  of  freedom?  Had  the 
Thirteenth  Amendment  stopped  with  the  sweeping  declara 
tion  in  its  first  section  against  the  existence  of  slavery  and  in- 

1  Civil  Rights  Cases,  109  U.S.  3. 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL  277 

voluntary  servitude,  except  for  crime,  Congress  would  have 
had  the  power  by  implication,  according  to  the  doctrines  of 
Prigg  v.  Commonwealth  of  Pennsylvania,  repeated  in  Strauder 
v.  West  Virginia,  to  protect  the  freedom  established  and  conse 
quently  to  secure  the  enjoyment  of  such  civil  rights  as  were 
fundamental  in  freedom.  That  it  can  exert  its  authority  to 
that  extent  is  made  clear,  and  was  intended  to  be  made  clear, 
by  the  express  grant  of  such  power  contained  in  the  second 
section  of  the  Amendment. 

The  question  whether  the  Civil  Rights  Act  of  1866  was 
or  was  not  constitutional  never  came  squarely  before  the 
Supreme  Court  on  a  test  case,  but,  as  we  have  seen,  other 
acts  analogous  to  it  did  come  before  that  tribunal  in  such 
a  way  that  the  authority  of  the  court  must  be  construed 
as  adverse  to  it.  My  own  thought  is  that  the  dissenting 
opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  Harlan  above  quoted  is  worth 
more  than  all  the  other  literature  on  this  subject  that  the 
books  contain. 

The  autumn  elections  of  1866  returned  a  larger  major 
ity  in  Congress  against  President  Johnson  than  had  been 
there  before.  The  result  in  Illinois  was  the  reelection  of 
Trumbull  as  Senator  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  Repub 
lican  legislative  caucus,  although  there  were  three  major- 
generals  of  the  victorious  Union  army  (Palmer,  Oglesby, 
and  Logan)  competing  for  that  position,  all  of  whom 
reached  it  later. 

Trumbull  sustained  Johnson  until  the  latter  vetoed 
the  Civil  Rights  Bill.  He  believed  that  the  freedom  of 
the  emancipated  blacks  was  put  in  peril  by  this  action  of 
the  President,  and  he  gave  all  of  his  energies  to  the  task 
of  passing  the  bill  over  the  veto  and  sustaining  it  before 
the  people.  In  this  he  was  successful,  but  the  avalanche 
of  public  opinion  thus  started  did  not  stop  with  the 
defeat  of  Johnson  in  the  election  of  1866.  It  carried  the 
control  of  the  Union  party  out  of  the  hands  of  the  con- 


278  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

servatives  and  gave  the  reins  of  leadership  to  Sumner, 
Stevens,  and  the  radical  wing.  Trumbull  followed  this 
lead  till  the  impeachment  of  Johnson  took  place,  when  he 
halted  and  saved  Johnson  at  the  expense  of  his  own  popu 
larity,  and  he  never  regretted  that  he  had  done  so. 

A  distant  echo  of  the  Civil  Rights  controversy  reached 
the  Illinois  Senator  from  the  state  of  Georgia,  where  he 
had  been  a  school-teacher  thirty  years  earlier.  The  cor 
respondence  is  introduced  here  as  a  corrective,  in  some 
part,  of  the  erroneous  opinion  that  Trumbull  was  a  man 
of  cold  and  unfeeling  nature: 

MORGAN  [Ga.j,  May  17th  [1866]. 
HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL: 

DEAR  SIR:  Truth  seems  strange,  but,  stranger  still  appears 
the  fact,  that  after  a  lapse  of  thirty  years,  I  should  offer  you 
a  feeble  acknowledgment  of  the  gratitude,  and  high  respect  I 
have  ever  cherished  for  you.  It  was  my  good  fortune  to  enjoy, 
in  Greenville,  for  nearly  three  years,  the  advantage  of  your 
profound  teachings;  and,  in  later  life,  when  adverse  circum 
stances  compel  me  to  impart  those  lessons,  and  the  hallowed 
influence  of  that  instruction,  to  others,  I  award  to  you  the  full 
meed  of  praise.  You  cannot  imagine  the  satisfaction  I  experi 
ence,  when  my  eye  turns  to  the  many  eloquent  addresses  you 
deliver  before  Congress;  but  as  there  lurks  beneath  the  most 
beautiful  rose,  thorns  that  inflict  deep  wounds,  so  your  avowed 
animosity  to  us  casts  a  gloom  over  those  delightful  emotions. 
Is  there  no  delightful  thrill  of  association  still  lingering  in  your 
bosom,  when  memory  reverts  to  your  sojourn  among  us?  Is 
there  no  period  in  that  long  space,  around  which  fond  retrospec 
tion  can  joyfully  flutter  her  wings,  and  crush  out  the  large 
drops  of  gall  that  have  been  distilled  into  your  cup?  I  think 
you,  and  you  alone,  have  the  power  and  influence  to  arrest  the 
mighty  tide  that  threatens  to  overwhelm  us.  Can  you  not  for 
get  our  past  delinquencies,  to  which,  I  confess,  we  have  been  too 
prone,  and  remember  only  the  little  good  you  discovered?  I 
often  make  special  inquiries  after  you,  and  was  much  interested 
in  an  account  given  by  an  old  Southern  member.  As  I  had  still 
in  my  mind's  eye  your  tall  and  erect  form,  my  surprise  was 


THE  CIVIL  RIGHTS  BILL  279 

great,  indeed,  to  be  told  that  your  form  was  not  so  straight, 
and  that  you  used  spectacles.  I  have  failed  in  the  proper  place 
to  mention  my  name,  "Fannie  Lowe,"  the  most  mischievous 
girl  of  the  school.  I  married  a  gentleman  from  Mobile,  who 
lived  eight  years  after  the  union.  He  fell  a  victim  to  cholera, 
fourteen  years  since,  during  its  prevalence  in  New  Orleans.  It 
was  my  great  misfortune  to  lose  my  daughter,  just  as  the  flower 
began  to  expand  and  promise  hope  and  comfort  for  my  old  age. 
In  conclusion,  I  will  be  delighted  to  hear  from  you,  and  by  all 
means  send  me  your  photograph.  My  kindest  regards  to  your 
dear  ones,  and  accept  the  warmest  wishes  of 

MRS.  F.  C.  GARY. 
MORGAN,  CALHOUN  CY.,  GEORGIA. 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE  CHAMBER, 
WASHINGTON,  June  27,  1866. 

MY  DEAR  MRS.  GARY:  I  was  truly  grateful  to  receive  yours 
of  the  17th  ult.,  and  to  know  that  after  the  lapse  of  thirty  years 
I  was  not  forgotten  by  those  who  were  my  pupils.  I  remember 
many  of  them  well,  and  for  all  have  ever  cherished  the  kindest 
of  feelings  and  the  best  of  wishes.  It  pains  me,  however,  to  think 
that  you  and  probably  most  of  those  about  you,  including  those 
once  my  scholars,  should  so  misunderstand  me  and  Northern 
sentiments  generally.  How  can  you,  my  dear  child,  —  excuse 
the  expression,  for  it  is  only  as  a  school-girl  I  remember  Fannie 
Lowe,  —  how  can  you,  I  repeat,  accuse  me  of  entertaining  feel 
ings  of  "  animosity  "  and  of  the  bitterness  of  "  gall "  towards  you 
or  the  South?  .  .  .  Towards  the  great  mass  of  those  engaged 
in  the  rebellion  the  North  feels  no  animosity.  We  believe  they 
were  induced  to  take  up  arms  against  the  Government  from  mis 
taken  views  of  Northern  sentiment  brought  about  by  ambitious 
and  wicked  leaders,  and  those  political  leaders  we  do  want,  at 
least,  to  exclude  from  political  power,  if  nothing  more,  till  loyal 
men  are  protected  and  loyalty  is  respected  in  the  rebellious  dis 
tricts.  It  is  in  the  power  of  the  Southern  people  to  have  recon 
struction  at  once,  and  the  restoration  of  civil  government,  com 
plete,  if  they  will  only  put  their  state  organizations  in  loyal 
hands,  elect  none  but  loyal  men  to  office,  and  see  that  those 
who  were  true  to  the  Union,  during  the  war,  of  all  classes,  are 
protected  in  their  rights.  I  ask  you,  in  all  candor,  till  the  dis 
loyal  of  the  South  are  willing  to  do  this,  ought  they  to  complain 


280  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

if  they  are  subjected  to  military  control?  I  enclose  you,  as 
requested,  a  couple  of  photographs,  which  you  will  hardly 
recognize  as  of  the  young  man  whom  you  knew  thirty  years 
ago.  The  one  without  a  beard  was  taken  three  or  four  years 
since;  the  other,  this  year.  My  family  consists  of  a  wife  and 
three  boys,  the  eldest  twenty  years  of  age. 

Please  remember  me  to  any  who  once  knew  me  at  Green 
ville,  for  all  of  whom  I  cherish  a  pleasant  remembrance;  and 
believe  me  your  sincere  friend, 

LYMAN  TRUMBULL. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT 

WHILE  the  events  in  the  preceding  chapter  were  trans 
piring,  a  joint  committee  on  Reconstruction  were  making 
an  inquiry  into  the  condition  of  the  ex-Confederate  States 
in  order  to  determine  whether  they  or  any  of  them  were 
entitled  to  immediate  representation  in  Congress.  It  con 
sisted  of  Senators  Fessenden,  Grimes,  Harris,  Howard, 
Williams,  and  Johnson,  and  Representatives  Stevens, 
Washburne,  of  Illinois,  Morrill,  of  Vermont,  Bingham, 
Conkling,  Boutwell,  Blow,  Rogers,  and  Grider.  Senator 
Reverdy  Johnson  and  Representatives  Rogers  and  Grider 
were  Democrats.  All  the  others  were  Republicans.  There 
was  a  preponderance  of  conservatives  on  the  committee. 
Senator  Fessenden  was  the  chairman,  and  his  selection 
for  the  place  marked  him  as  princeps  senatus  in  the  esti 
mation  of  his  colleagues. 

While  the  Civil  Rights  Bill  was  pending  in  the  House, 
we  have  seen  that  Bingham,  of  Ohio,  made  a  speech  against 
it  and  voted  against  it,  holding  it  to  be  unconstitutional. 
He  had  supported  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  Bill  because 
it  applied  only  to  states  in  the  inchoate  condition  which 
then  existed.  It  was  to  be  inoperative  in  any  state,  when 
restored  to  its  constitutional  relations  with  the  Union. 
The  Civil  Rights  Bill,  on  the  other  hand,  was  to  apply  to 
the  whole  country,  North  and  South,  without  limit  as  to 
time,  and  to  affect  the  civil  and  criminal  code  of  every 
State  Government.  He  held  that  there  was  no  constitu 
tional  warrant  for  this,  either  in  the  Thirteenth  Amend 
ment  or  elsewhere.  In  order  to  cure  the  supposed  defect, 


282  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Bingham  proposed  to  the  Reconstruction  Committee  a 
new  constitutional  amendment  in  these  words: 

The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  make  all  laws  which  shall 
be  necessary  and  proper  to  secure  to  the  citizens  of  each  state 
all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several  states, 
and  to  all  persons  in  the  several  states  equal  protection  in  the 
rights  of  life,  liberty,  and  property. 

This  was  agreed  to  by  the  committee,  but  before  it  was 
reported  to  the  House,  Stevens  presented  a  series  of 
amendments  consisting  of  five  sections  which  had  been 
prepared  by  Robert  Dale  Owen,  a  distinguished  publicist, 
who  was  not  a  member  of  the  Congress.  This  series  had 
met  Stevens's  approval,  and  after  some  delay  and  some 
changes  it  was  adopted  by  the  committee.  Bingham  then 
withdrew  his  own  proposed  amendment  and  offered  the 
following  in  place  of  it,  which  was  adopted  as  section  one: 

No  state  shall  make  or  enforce  any  law  which  shall  abridge 
the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
nor  shall  any  state  deprive  any  person  of  life,  liberty,  or  pro 
perty  without  due  process  of  law,  nor  deny  to  any  person 
within  its  jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws. 

The  difference  between  this  provision  and  the  first  one 
proposed  by  Bingham  was  the  whole  difference  between 
giving  Congress  power  to  pass  laws  for  the  administration 
of  justice  in  the  states  and  merely  prohibiting  the  states 
from  making  discriminations  between  citizens.  There 
was  no  definition  of  citizenship  in  the  amendment  as 
reported  by  the  joint  committee.  Apparently  they  relied 
upon  the  Civil  Rights  Act,  which  had  been  passed  over 
the  President's  veto,  to  supply  that  definition,  but  shortly 
before  the  final  vote  was  taken  in  the  Senate,  Howard, 
who  had  charge  of  the  measure  in  the  temporary  illness  of 
Fessenden,  proposed  the  following  words  to  be  placed  at 
the  beginning  of  the  first  section. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  283 

All  persons  born  or  naturalized  in  the  United  States,  and 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  thereof,  are  citizens  of  the  United 
States  and  of  the  state  wherein  they  reside. 

The  reason  for  adopting  this  clause  was  to  validate 
the  corresponding  part  of  the  Civil  Rights  Act  and  put  it 
beyond  repeal,  in  the  event  that  the  Republicans  should 
at  some  future  time  lose  control  of  Congress. 

In  addition  to  the  first  section,  as  shown  above,  the 
amendment  provided  that  Representatives  should  be 
apportioned  among  the  several  states  according  to  popu 
lation,  but  that  when  the  right  to  vote  was  denied  in  any 
state  to  any  of  the  male  inhabitants  who  were  twenty- 
one  years  of  age  and  citizens  of  the  United  States,  except 
for  rebellion  or  .other  crime,  the  representation  of  such 
state  in  Congress  and  the  Electoral  College  should  be 
proportionately  reduced.  Also  that  no  person  should  hold 
any  office  under  the  United  States  or  any  state  who,  hav 
ing  previously  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  had  engaged  in  insurrection  or  rebel 
lion  against  the  same,  but  that  Congress  might,  by  a  two- 
thirds  vote,  remove  such  disability.  Also  that  the  validity 
of  the  public  debt  of  the  United  States  should  not  be  ques 
tioned,  but  that  no  debt  incurred  in  aid  of  insurrection 
or  rebellion  should  ever  be  paid  by  the  United  States  or 
any  state.  The  concluding  section  provided  that  Congress 
should  have  power  to  enforce  by  appropriate  legislation 
the  provisions  of  the  article. 

The  Fourteenth  Amendment  passed  the  Senate  June  8, 
by  33  to  11,  and  the  House  June  13,  by  138  to  36.  Sum- 
ner  had  opposed  it  bitterly  in  debate  because  it  dodged,  as 
he  said,  the  question  of  negro  suffrage;  but  when  the  vote 
was  taken  he  recorded  himself  in  the  affirmative. 

The  report  of  the  committee  giving  the  reasons  for 
their  action  was  submitted  on  the  18th  of  June.  It  held 


284  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

that  the  seceding  states,  having  withdrawn  from  Con 
gress  and  levied  war  against  the  United  States,  could 
be  restored  to  their  former  places  only  by  permission 
of  the  constitutional  power  against  which  they  had  re 
belled  acting  through  all  the  coordinate  branches  of 
the  Government  and  not  by  the  executive  department 
alone. 

If  the  President  [it  said]  may,  at  his  will  and  under  his  own 
authority,  whether  as  military  commander,  or  chief  executive, 
qualify  persons  to  appoint  Senators  and  elect  Representatives, 
and  empower  others  to  elect  and  appoint  them,  he  thereby 
practically  controls  the  organization  of  the  legislative  depart 
ment.  The  constitutional  form  of  government  is  thereby  prac 
tically  destroyed,  and  its  powers  absorbed  by  the  Executive. 
And  while  your  committee  do  not  for  a  moment  impute  to  the 
President  any  such  design,  but  cheerfully  concede  to  him  the 
most  patriotic  motives,  they  cannot  but  look  with  alarm  upon 
a  precedent  so  fraught  with  danger  to  the  Republic. 

This  conclusion  was  logical  but  misleading.  The  danger 
to  the  Republic  lay  not  in  the  absorption  of  powers  by  the 
Executive,  but  in  the  prolongation  of  chaos,  in  dethroning 
intelligence,  and  arming  ignorance  in  the  desolated  dis 
tricts  of  the  South.1 

Stevens  also  reported  a  bill  "to  provide  for  restoring 
the  states  lately  in  insurrection  to  their  full  political 
rights."  It  recited  that  whenever  the  Fourteenth  Amend 
ment  should  become  a  part  of  the  Constitution,  and  any 
state  lately  in  insurrection  should  have  ratified  it  and  con 
formed  itself  thereto,  its  duly  elected  Senators  and  Rep 
resentatives  would  be  admissible  to  seats  in  Congress. 
This  bill  was  not  acted  on,  but  lay  on  the  table  of  each 

1  Trumbull  did  not  take  an  active  part  in  the  framing  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment.  A  minute  and  unbiased  history  of  it  has  been  written  by  Horace 
Edgar  Flack,  Ph.D.,  and  published  by  the  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  Baltimore, 
1908.  It  is  impossible  to  resist  the  conclusion  of  this  writer,  that  partisanship 
was  a  potent  factor  in  the  framing  and  adoption  of  it. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  285 

house  awaiting  the  action  of  the  Southern  States  on  the 
proposed  amendment. 

On  July  23,  the  two  houses  adopted  a  preamble  and 
joint  resolution  admitting  Tennessee  to  her  former  rela 
tions  to  the  Union.  The  preamble  recited  that  that  state 
had  ratified  the  Thirteenth  and  Fourteenth  Amendments 
to  the  Constitution.  There  were  only  four  negative  votes 
on  the  Tennessee  bill :  Brown  and  Sumner,  Republicans, 
and  Buckalew  and  McDougall,  Democrats.  The  Presi 
dent  signed  the  bill,  but  he  added  a  brief  message  explain 
ing  that  his  reason  for  doing  so  was  that  he  desired  to 
remove  every  cause  of  further  delay,  whether  real  or 
imaginary,  to  the  admission  of  the  Representatives  of 
Tennessee,  but  he  affirmed  that  Congress  could  not  right 
fully  make  the  passage  of  such  a  law  a  condition  precedent 
to  such  admission  in  the  case  of  Tennessee,  or  of  any  other 
state. 

The  next  event  of  importance  in  the  controversy  over 
Reconstruction  was  the  National  Union  Convention  held 
in  Philadelphia  on  the  14th  of  August.  It  was  composed 
of  delegates  from  all  the  states  and  territories,  North  and 
South,  who  sustained  the  President's  policy  and  acqui 
esced  in  the  results  of  the  war,  including  the  abolition  of 
slavery.  This  came  to  be  known  as  the  "Arm-in- Arm 
Convention"  as  the  procession  leading  to  the  platform 
was  headed  by  two  delegates,  one  from  Massachusetts 
and  one  from  South  Carolina,  walking  together  with  their 
arms  joined.  The  signers  of  the  call  embraced  the  names 
of  A.  W.  Randall,  ex-governor  of  Wisconsin,  Senators 
Cowan,  Doolittle,  Fowler,  Norton,  Dixon,  Nesmith,  and 
Hendricks,  and  ex-senator  Browning,  then  Secretary  of  the 
Interior.  The  convention  itself  was  eminently  respecta 
ble  in  point  of  numbers  and  character.  It  was  presided 
over  by  Senator  Doolittle,  and  the  chairman  of  its  Com- 


286  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

mittee  on  Resolutions  was  Senator  Cowan.  The  resolu 
tions  adopted  were  ten  in  number  and  were  faultless  in 
principle  and  in  expression.  They  were  conveyed  to  the 
President  by  a  committee  of  seventy-two  persons.  The 
effect  of  this  dignified  movement  was  offset  and  neutral 
ized  in  large  part  by  one  paragraph  of  the  President's 
reply  to  the  presentation  speech,  namely: 

We  have  witnessed  in  one  department  of  the  Government 
every  endeavor  to  prevent  the  restoration  of  peace,  harmony, 
and  union.  We  have  seen  hanging  upon  the  verge  of  the  Gov 
ernment,  as  it  were,  a  body  called,  or  which  assumed  to  be,  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  while  in  fact  it  is  a  Congress  of 
only  a  part  of  the  states.  We  have  seen  this  Congress  pretend 
to  be  for  the  Union  when  its  every  step  and  act  tended  to  per 
petuate  disunion  and  make  the  disruption  of  the  states  inev 
itable.  Instead  of  promoting  reconciliation  and  harmony  its 
legislation  has  partaken  of  the  character  of  penalties,  retalia 
tion,  and  revenge.  This  has  been  the  course  and  policy  of  your 
Government. 

This  impeachment  of  the  legality  of  Congress  was  fol 
lowed  by  a  battle  in  the  political  field,  which  raged  with 
increasing  fury  during  the  whole  remainder  of  Johnson's 
term  of  office  and  projected  itself  into  the  two  terms  of 
President  Grant  and  the  beginning  of  that  of  President 
Hayes,  embracing  the  episodes  of  the  impeachment  trial 
and  the  Liberal  Republican  movement  of  1872.  All  of  this 
turmoil,  and  the  suffering  which  it  brought  upon  the 
South,  would,  probably,  have  been  avoided  if  Lincoln, 
with  his  strong  hold  upon  the  loyal  sentiment  of  the  coun 
try  and  his  readiness  to  conciliate  opponents,  without 
surrendering  principle,  had  not  been  assassinated.  They 
became  possible  if  not  inevitable  when  the  presidential 
chair  was  taken,  in  a  time  of  crisis,  by  a  man  of  combative 
temper,  without  prestige  in  the  North,  and  devoid  of  tact 
although  of  good  intentions  and  undoubted  patriotism. 


THE  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENT  287 

The  Southern  States  refused  to  agree  to  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment.  To  them  the  insuperable  objection  was  the 
clause  excluding  from  the  office-holding  class  those  who 
had  taken  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  and  had  afterwards  engaged  in  insurrection 
against  the  same.  The  common  people  refused  to  accept 
better  terms  than  were  accorded  to  their  leaders.  This 
was  true  chivalry  and  is  not  to  be  condemned,  but  the 
consequence  was  an  increase  of  the  power  of  the  radicals 
in  the  North.  It  disabled  conservatives  like  Fessenden, 
Trumbull,  and  Grimes  in  Congress,  John  A.  Andrew, 
Henry  Ward  Beecher,  and  William  C.  Bryant,  influential 
in  other  walks  in  life,  from  making  effective  resistance  to 
the  measures  of  Sumner  and  Stevens.  If  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  had  been  ratified  by  any  of  the  other  ex- 
Confederate  States,  such  states  would  have  been  admitted 
at  once  as  Tennessee  was.  Both  Wade  and  Howard,  hot 
radicals  as  they  were,  refused  to  go  with  Sumner  when  he 
insisted  that  further  conditions  should  be  exacted.  WTien 
he  offered  an  amendment  looking  to  negro  suffrage, 
Howard  said  that  the  Joint  Committee  on  Reconstruc 
tion  had  maturely  considered  that  question  and  had  care 
fully  abstained  from  interfering  with  "that  very  sacred 
right"  —  the  right  of  each  state  to  regulate  the  suffrage 
within  its  own  limits.  He  argued  that  it  was  inexpedient 
in  a  party  point  of  view  to  do  so,  and  predicted  that  if  the 
rebel  states  were  coerced  to  adopt  negro  suffrage  by  an 
act  of  Congress,  or  by  constitutional  amendment,  they 
would  rid  themselves  of  it  after  gaining  admission.1 

1  Cong.  Globe,  February  15,  1867,  p.  1381. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

CROSSING   THE   RUBICON 

ON  the  17th  of  December,  1866,  the  Supreme  Court 
rendered  its  decision  in  the  Milligan  case,  which  had 
reached  that  tribunal  on  a  certificate  of  disagreement 
between  the  two  judges  of  the  United  States  Circuit 
Court  for  Indiana.  Milligan,  a  citizen,  not  in  the  military 
or  naval  service,  had  been  arrested  in  October,  1864,  by 
General  A.  P.  Hovey,  commanding  the  military  district 
of  Indiana,  for  alleged  treasonable  acts,  had  been  tried  by 
a  military  commission,  found  guilty,  and  sentenced  to  be 
hanged  on  the  19th  day  of  May,  1865.  He  petitioned  the 
court  for  a  discharge  from  custody  under  the  terms  of  the 
Habeas  Corpus  Act  passed  by  Congress  March  3,  1863. 
He  affirmed  that,  since  his  arrest,  there  had  been  a  ses 
sion  of  the  grand  jury  in  his  district  and  that  it  had 
adjourned  without  finding  an  indictment  against  him. 
The  act  of  Congress  provided  that  the  names  of  all  civil 
ians  arrested  by  the  military  authorities  in  places  where 
the  courts  were  open  should  be  reported  to  the  judges 
within  twenty  days  after  their  arrest,  and  that  if  they 
were  not  indicted  at  the  first  term  of  court  thereafter  they 
should  be  set  at  liberty. 

This  question  had  been  pretty  thoroughly  thrashed  out 
in  the  Vallandigham  case,  but  it  had  been  imperfectly 
understood;  President  Lincoln  had  gone  astray  in  that 
labyrinth,  and  judges  on  the  bench  had  differed  from  each 
other  in  their  interpretation  of  an  unambiguous  statute. 
The  most  commonly  accepted  opinion  was  that  the  act  of 


CROSSING  THE  RUBICON  289 

1863  was  not  applicable  to  Copperheads,  or,  if  it  was, 
that  it  ought  not  to  be  obeyed. 

The  Supreme  Court  was  unanimous  in  the  opinion  that 
Milligan  must  be  discharged,  since  the  law  was  plain  and 
unequivocal,  but  there  was  a  division  among  the  nine 
judges  of  the  court  as  to  the  power  to  try  persons  not  in 
the  military  service,  by  military  commission.  Five  judges 
held  that  Congress  could  not  abolish  trial  by  jury  in 
places  where  the  courts  we-'e  open  and  the  course  of  jus 
tice  unimpeded.  Four  judges  maintained  that  Congress 
might  authorize  military  commissions  to  try  civilians  in 
certain  cases  where  the  civil  courts  were  open  and  freely 
exercising  their  functions,  although  Congress  had  not  ac 
tually  done  so.  The  five  judges  constituting  the  majority 
were  Davis  (who  wrote  the  opinion  of  the  court),  Clifford, 
Nelson,  Grier,  and  Field.  The  four  who  dissented  from 
the  argument,  but  not  from  the  judgment,  were  Chief  Jus 
tice  Chase  (who  wrote  the  minority  opinion) ,  and  Judges 
Wayne,  Swayne,  and  Miller.  Davis's  opinion  is  not  sur 
passed  in  argumentative  power  or  in  literary  expression 
by  anything  in  the  annals  of  that  great  tribunal. 

The  logical  consequences  of  the  decision  were  tremen 
dous,  or  would  have  been,  if  the  public  mind  had  been  in 
a  condition  to  appreciate  its  gravity.  Not  only  did  it  fol 
low  logically  that  the  trial  and  execution  of  Booth's  fellow 
conspirators, jPayjie,  Atzerodt,  Herold,  and  Mrs.  Surra/tt, 
were,  in  contemplation  of  law,  no  better  than  lynching, 
but  that  Andrew  Johnson's  endeavor  to  put  an  end  to 
government  by  military  commissions,  as  soon  as  possible, 
was  right,  and  that  the  contrary  design,  by  whomsoever 
held,  was  wrong. 

The  radicals  in  Congress,  however,  were  only  angered 
by  the  decision.  They  were  not  in  the  least  disconcerted 
by  it,  but  the  court  itself  was  very  much  so.  If  it  had  been 


290  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

necessary  to  pass  a  law  reorganizing  the  court,  in  order 
to  reap  the  fruits  of  the  victory  won  in  .the  recent  elec 
tions,  a  majority  could  have  been  obtained  for  it. 

Under  date  of  January  8,  1867,  the  "Diary  of  Gideon 
Welles"  tells  us  that  there  was  a  Cabinet  meeting  at 
which  the  President  said  that  he  wished  to  obtain  the 
views  of  each  member  on  the  subject,  already  mooted,  of 
dismantling  states  and  throwing  them  into  a  territorial 
condition.  A  colloquy  ensued  which  is  reported  as  fol 
lows: 

Seward  was  evidently  taken  by  surprise.  Said  he  had 
avoided  expressing  himself  on  these  questions;  did  not  think  it 
judicious  to  anticipate  them;  that  storms  were  never  so  furi 
ous  as  they  threatened;  but  as  the  subject  had  been  brought 
up,  he  would  say  that  never,  under  any  circumstances,  could  he 
be  brought  to  admit  that  a  sovereign  state  had  been  destroyed, 
or  could  be  reduced  to  a  territorial  condition. 

McCulloch  was  equally  decided,  that  the  states  could  not  be 
converted  into  territories. 

Stanton  said  he  had  communicated  his  views  to  no  man.  Here, 
in  the  Cabinet,  he  had  assented  to  and  cordially  approved  of 
every  step  which  had  been  taken,  to  reorganize  the  govern 
ments  of  the  states  which  had  rebelled,  and  saw  no  cause  to 
change  or  depart  from  it.  Stevens's  proposition  he  had  not 
seen,  and  did  not  care  to,  for  it  was  one  of  those  schemes  which 
would  end  in  noise  and  smoke.  He  had  conversed  with  but  one 
Senator,  Mr.  Sumner,  and  that  was  one  year  ago,  when  Sum- 
ner  said  he  disapproved  of  the  policy  of  the  Administration  and 
intended  to  upset  it.  He  had  never  since  conversed  with  Sum 
ner  nor  any  one  else.  He  did  not  concur  in  Mr.  Simmer's  views, 
nor  did  he  think  a  state  would  or  could  be  remanded  to  a  terri 
torial  condition. 

I  stated  my  concurrence  in  the  opinions  which  had  been 
expressed  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  that  I  held  Congress 
had  no  power  to  take  from  a  state  its  reserved  rights  and  sov 
ereignty,  or  to  impose  terms  on  one  state  which  were  not 
imposed  on  all  states. 

Stanbery  said  he  was  clear  and  unqualifiedly  against  the 


CROSSING  THE  RUBICON  291 

whole  talk  and  theory  of  territorializing  the  states.  Congress 
could  not  dismantle  them.  It  had  not  the  power,  and  on  that 
point  he  would  say  that  it  was  never  expedient  to  do  or  attempt 
to  do  that  which  we  had  not  the  power  to  do. 

Browning  declared  that  no  state  could  be  cut  down  or  extin 
guished.  Congress  could  make  and  admit  states,  but  could  not 
destroy  or  extinguish  them  after  they  were  made.1 

This  extract  is  rather  astounding  for  what  it  tells  us 
of  Stanton's  position.  Simultaneously,  or  nearly  so,  Con 
gress  passed  an  act  virtually  making  the  General  of  the 
Army  independent  of  the  President,  and  prohibiting  the 
President  from  assigning  him  to  duty  elsewhere  than  in 
Washington  City  without  the  consent  of  the  Senate, 
except  at  his  own  request.  Congressman  Boutwell,  of 
Massachusetts,  tells  us  that  this  provision  was  privately 
suggested  to  him  by  Stanton  and  that  he  (Boutwell) 
wrote  it  down  at  the  War  Department  as  dictated  by 
Stanton,  and  took  it  to  Thaddeus  Stevens  who  incorpo 
rated  it  in  an  appropriation  bill.2 

If  the  radicals  were  elated  by  the  result  of  the  elections, 
the  conservatives  were  correspondingly  depressed.  It 
was  no  longer  possible  to  prevent  Stevens  and  Sumner 
from  taking  the  lead,  which  they  did  forthwith.  They 
crossed  the  Rubicon  with  the  whole  army.  The  Recon 
struction  policy  initiated  by  Lincoln  was  now  for  the  first 
time  definitely  abandoned  by  the  Union  party.  In  the 
month  of  February,  Stevens  carried  through  the  House  a 
bill  declaring  that  there  were  no  legal  governments  in  the 
ten  rebel  states,  and  providing  that  the  existing  govern 
ments  should  be  superseded  by  the  military  authority.  It 
provided  for  no  termination  of  such  military  government. 
Amendments  were  added  by  the  Senate  providing  for 
constitutional  conventions  in  those  states,  to  be  elected  by 

1  Diary  of  Gideon  Wettes,  in,  10-12. 

2  Boutwell,  Reminiscences,  n,  108. 


292  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

the  male  citizens  twenty-one  years  old  and  upward,  of 
whatever  race  or  color,  except  those  disfranchised  for  par 
ticipation  in  rebellion.  It  was  provided  further  that  when 
the  constitutions  so  framed  should  contain  clauses  giving 
the  elective  franchise  to  all  persons  entitled  to  vote  in  the 
election  for  delegates,  and  when  the  constitutions  should 
be  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  people,  and  when  such 
constitutions  should  have  been  submitted  to  and  ap 
proved  by  Congress,  and  when  the  states  should  have  rat 
ified  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  and  it  should  have  been 
adopted,  then  the  states  so  reorganized  should  be  entitled 
to  representation  in  Congress,  provided  that  no  persons 
disfranchised  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  should  vote 
at  the  election  or  be  eligible  to  membership  of  the  con 
ventions.  The  clause  making  negro  suffrage  a  permanent 
condition  of  Reconstruction  was  adopted  in  a  senatorial 
caucus  on  the  motion  of  Sumner  by  a  majority  of  two, 
after  it  had  been  rejected  almost  unanimously  by  the 
Senate  committee  to  which  it  had  been  referred.1 

Trumbull,  Fessenden,  and  Sherman  voted  against 
Sumner's  motion,  but  after  it  became  the  policy  of  the 
party  they  supported  it.  And  here  they  made  a  mistake, 
for  this  was  the  act  which  placed  the  governments  of  ten 
states  in  the  hands  of  the  most  ignorant  portion  of  the 
community  and  disfranchised  the  most  intelligent,  entail 
ing  the  direful  consequences  of  the  succeeding  ten  years. 

The  road  which  the  dominant  party  had  now  taken 
was,  however,  taken  conscientiously.  Congress  and  the 

1  This  was  the  second  time  that  Sumner  had  shunted  the  nation  in  the  direc 
tion  he  desired  it  to  go;  the  first  time  was  when  he  filibustered  the  Louisiana 
Bill  to  death  at  the  end  of  the  Thirty-ninth  Congress.  Edward  L.  Pierce,  his 
biographer  and  eulogist,  writing  in  the  early  nineties,  says  rather  dubiously: 
"  For  weal  or  woe,  whether  it  was  well  or  not  for  the  black  race  and  the  country, 
it  is  to  Sumner's  credit  or  discredit  as  a  statesman  that  suffrage,  irrespective  of 
race  or  color,  became  fixed  and  universal  in  the  American  system."  (Memoir 
and  Letters,  i,  228.) 


CROSSING  THE  RUBICON 

Northern  people  sincerely  believed  that  slavery  would  be 
reestablished  in  some  form  unless  the  negroes  had  the 
right  to  vote  and  the  assurance  that  their  votes  would  be 
counted,  and  that,  in  that  case,  the  war  would  have  to  be 
fought  over  again.  Of  course,  party  spirit  and  the  greed 
of  office  had  a  place  among  the  impelling  motives  at 
Washington,  but  these  considerations  would  not  have 
availed  had  not  the  opinion  been  deep-seated  that  a 
Democratic  victory  won  by  the  votes  of  the  solid  South 
and  a  minority  of  the  North  would  endanger  the  Union. 

Senator  Cullom,  of  Illinois,  who  was  then  a  member  of 
the  House,  said,  forty-four  years  later,  that  "the  motive 
of  the  opposition  to  the  Johnson  plan  of  Reconstruction 
was  a  firm  conviction  that  its  success  would  wreck  the 
Republican  party  and,  by  restoring  the  Democracy  to 
power,  bring  back  Southern  supremacy  and  Northern 
vassalage." l 

Montgomery  Blair  apprehended  another  revolution  or 
rebellion  and  said  that  there  might  be  two  opposing  gov 
ernments  organized  in  Washington.  Maynard,  of  Tennes 
see,  a  stanch  loyalist,  believed  that  Senators  and  Repre 
sentatives  from  all  the  states  would  soon  make  their 
appearance  at  the  national  capital  and  that  those  from 
the  rebel  states  would  join  with  the  Democratic  members 
from  the  loyal  states,  constitute  a  majority,  organize, 
repeal  the  test  oath,  and  have  things  their  own  way. 
Welles,  while  recording  these  opinions,  held  the  sounder 
one  that  the  South  was  too  exhausted  and  the  Northern 
Democrats  too  timid  for  such  a  step.2 

The  Reconstruction  Bill  passed  both  houses  on  the 
20th  day  of  February,  1867,  was  vetoed  by  the  President 
on  the  2d  of  March,  and  was  repassed  on  the  same  day  by 

1  Fifty  Years  of  Public  Service,  by  Shelby  M.  Cullom,  p.  146. 

2  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  n,  484. 


294  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

more  than  two-thirds  majority  in  each  house,  Trumbull 
voting  in  the  affirmative. 

It  was  followed  by  a  supplementary  bill  even  more  dras 
tic,  providing  for  a  registration  of  voters,  and  requiring 
each  person,  before  he  could  be  registered,  to  take  an  oath 
that  he  had  not  been  disfranchised  for  participation  in  any 
rebellion,  or  civil  war,  against  the  United  States,  and  had 
never  held  any  legislative,  executive,  or  judicial  office  and 
afterwards  engaged  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States, 
or  given  aid  or  comfort  to  the  enemies  thereof.  The  Presi 
dent  was  not  slow  to  perceive  the  monstrosity  of  these 
provisions.  In  his  veto  message  he  dwelt  on  the  absurdity 
of  expecting  every  man  to  know  whether  he  had  been  dis 
franchised  or  not,  and  what  acts  amounted  to  "participa 
tion"  or  fell  short  of  it,  and  what  constituted  the  giving 
of  aid  and  comfort  to  the  enemies  of  the  United  States. 
With  genuine  pathos  he  added : 

When  I  contemplate  the  millions  of  our  fellow  citizens  of  the 
South  with  no  alternative  left  but  to  impose  upon  themselves 
this  fearful  and  untried  experiment  of  complete  negro  enfran 
chisement,  and  white  disfranchisement  (it  may  be)  almost  as 
complete,  or  submit  indefinitely  to  the  rigor  of  martial  law 
without  a  single  attribute  of  freemen,  deprived  of  all  the  sacred 
guaranties  of  our  Federal  Constitution,  and  threatened  with 
even  worse  wrongs,  if  any  worse  are  possible,  it  seems  to  me 
their  condition  is  the  most  deplorable  to  which  any  people  can 
be  reduced. 

This  bill  was  passed  over  the  veto  on  the  23d  of  March, 
Trumbull  voting  in  the  affirmative.  These  votes,  how 
ever,  did  not  prevent  him  from  publishing  in  the  Chicago 
Advance  of  September  5,  the  same  year,  a  carefully  writ 
ten  article  denying  the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate  the 
suffrage  in  the  states,  concluding  with  the  following  para 
graphs: 

If  the  views  expressed  are  correct,  it  follows  that  there  are 


CROSSING  THE  RUBICON  295 

but  two  ways  of  securing  impartial  suffrage  throughout  the 
Union.  One  is,  for  the  states  themselves  to  adopt  it,  which  is 
being  done  by  some  already;  and  now  that  the  subject  is  being 
agitated  and  its  justice  being  made  apparent,  it  is  to  be  hoped 
it  will  soon  commend  itself  to  all:  the  other  is,  by  an  amend 
ment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  adopting  impar 
tial  suffrage  throughout  the  Union,  which  to  become  effective 
must  be  ratified  by  three  fourths  of  the  States. 

Amendments  of  the  constitutions  of  Ohio,  Kansas,  and 
Minnesota  for  that  purpose  were  then  pending,  but  they 
were  all  voted  down  by  the  people  in  October  and  Novem 
ber,  1867. 

Congress  continued  to  pass  supplementary  Reconstruc 
tion  measures  at  short  intervals.  One  such  authorized 
the  commanders  of  the  military  districts  to  suspend  or 
remove  any  persons  holding  any  office,  civil  or  military, 
in  their  districts  and  appoint  other  persons  to  fill  their 
places  and  exercise  their  functions  subject  to  the  disap 
proval  of  the  General  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States. 
It  was  declared  to  be  the  duty  of  the  commanders  afore 
said  to  remove  from  office  all  persons  disloyal  to  the 
United  States  and  all  who  should  seek  to  hinder,  delay,  or 
obstruct  the  administration  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts. 
Section  eight  of  this  act  made  members  of  boards  of 
registration  removable  in  like  manner.  Section  eleven 
provided  that  "all  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  of  the 
acts  to  which  it  is  supplementary,  should  be  construed 
liberally."  This  bill  was  vetoed  by  the  President  July  19, 
1867,  and  was  passed  over  the  veto  by  both  houses  the 
same  day.  Still  another  supplementary  act  was  passed 
on  the  llth  of  March,  1868,  relating  to  the  election  of 
members  of  Congress  in  the  rebel  states. 

Under  this  harness  of  militarism  constitutional  conven 
tions  were  held  and  constitutions  adopted  by  all  of  said 
states,  except  Texas  and  Mississippi,  during  the  year 


,296  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

1868,  and  all  the  rest  of  them  were  admitted  to  the  Union 
except  Virginia,  subject,  however,  to  the  condition  that 
their  constitutions  should  never  be  amended,  or  changed, 
so  as  to  deprive  any  citizen,  or  class  of  citizens,  of  the 
right  to  vote,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crimes  of  the 
grade  of  felonies  at  common  law. 

Delays  having  occurred  in  the  course  of  procedure  in 
Virginia,  Mississippi,  and  Texas,  there  was  opportunity 
to  apply  new  conditions  to  their  readmission  and  this 
chance  was  eagerly  seized  by  the  radicals.  Trumbull,  on 
the  13th  of  January,  1870,  reported  from  the  Judiciary 
Committee  a  simple  resolution  reciting  that  Virginia, 
having  complied  with  all  the  requirements,  was  entitled  to 
representation  in  Congress.  This  was  amended  on  mo 
tion  of  Drake,  of  Missouri,  by  a  proviso  that  it  should 
never  be  lawful  for  the  state  to  deprive  any  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  con 
dition  of  servitude,  of  the  right  to  hold  office.  Trumbull 
said  in  the  debate  on  this  proposition  that  Congress  had 
no  authority  to  enact  it  and  that  it  would  not  be  binding 
on  the  state.  Yet  it  was  adopted  by  a  majority  of  one 
vote,  30  to  29.  Wilson  then  moved  as  an  amendment  that 
the  state  constitution  should  never  be  so  changed  as  to 
deprive  any  citizen  or  class  of  citizens  of  school  privileges, 
and  this  was  adopted  by  31  to  29,  Trumbull  in  the  nega 
tive.  In  addition  to  these  a  long  section  was  added  pre 
scribing  a  new  form  of  oath  to  be  taken  by  all  state  officers 
and  members  of  the  legislature,  which  was  adopted  by  45 
to  16,  Trumbull  voting  no.  In  the  final  vote  on  the  Bill, 
however,  he  voted  in  the  affirmative.  The  same  condi 
tions  were  applied  to  Mississippi  and  Texas. 

In  the  debate  on  the  Virginia  Bill  there  was  a  passage- 
at-arms  between  Trumbull  and  Sumner  which  came  near 
to  overstepping  parliamentary  rules  on  both  sides  and 


CROSSING  THE  RUBICON  297 

which  caused  widespread  newspaper  comment.  It  was 
generally  believed  that  a  rupture  had  taken  place  between 
them  which  would  never  be  healed;  yet  a  year  later,  when 
the  decree  went  forth  (presumably  from  the  White  House) 
that  Sumner  must  be  deposed  from  the  chairmanship  of 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  Trumbull  was  one 
of  his  strongest  supporters  in  the  fight  which  ensued, 
r^rollowing  close  after  the  reconstruction  of  Virginia 
came  the  re-reconstruction  of  Georgia.  That  state  ratified 
her  post-bellum  constitution  on  the  tlth  of  May,  1868,  and 
elected  Rufus  P.  Bullock,  governor.  He  represented  the 
radicals,  but  the  conservatives  at  the  same  time  carried 
the  state  legislature.  A  few  negroes  had  been  elected  as 
members,  and  these  were  expelled  on  the  ground  that  the 
right  to  hold  office  had  not  been  conferred  upon  them  by 
the  new  constitution.  The  supreme  court  of  the  state  a 
few  months  later  decided  that  since  the  rights  of  citizen 
ship  and  of  voting  had  been  conferred  upon  them,  the 
right  to  hold  office  belonged  to  them  also  unless  expressly 
denied.  In  addition  to  unseating  the  blacks,  the  conserv 
atives  had  admitted  certain  members  who  could  not  take 
the  oath  prescribed  in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  of 
the  Constitution.  Governor  Bullock  needed  a  legislature 
different  from  the  one  which  had  been  elected,  in  order  to 
accomplish  certain  ends  which  he  had  in  view,  and  he 
seized  upon  these  irregularities  as  a  means  of  overturning 
the  majority.  He  then  raised  an  outcry,  which  he  knew 
would  stir  the  north,  —  that  the  blacks  in  Georgia  were 
still  terrorized  by  the  Ku-Klux  Klans. 

President  Grant  soon  thereafter  recommended  that 
Congress  take  Georgia  again  in  hand.  This  was  done 
promptly.  An  act  was  passed  directing  Governor  Bullock 
to  call  the  legislature  together  and  directing  the  legislature 
to  reorganize  itself  in  accordance  with  the  oaths  of  office 


298  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

heretofore  prescribed,  including  that  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment;  to  exclude  all  persons  who  could  not  law 
fully  take  those  oaths  and  to  admit  all  who  had  been 
expelled  on  account  of  color;  also  requiring  Georgia  to 
ratify  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  before  her  Representa 
tives  and  Senators  should  be  admitted  to  seats  in  Con 
gress.  The  seventh  section  of  the  act  authorized  Gover 
nor  Bullock  to  call  for  the  services  of  the  army  and  navy 
of  the  United  States  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  act. 
Under  this  authority,  exercised  by  General  Terry,  twenty- 
four  conservatives  were  expelled  from  the  legislature  and 
their  places  were  filled  by  radicals,  and  the  negroes  for 
merly  excluded  were  returned  to  their  places.  Even  this 
did  not  satisfy  Bullock.  He  went  to  Washington  with  a 
troop  of  carpet-baggers  and  a  pocketful  of  money  and 
railroad  bonds  and  persuaded  General  Butler,  who  was 
chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  Reconstruction,  to 
bring  in  a  bill  for  the  restoration  of  Georgia  similar  to  that 
of  Virginia,  with  a  proviso  extending  for  two  years  the 
term  of  office  of  the  present  legislature,  which  would  other 
wise  expire  in  November,  1870.  Butler  reported  such  a  bill 
from  his  committee,  but  Bingham,  of  Ohio,  offered  an 
amendment  to  require  a  new  election  of  the  legislature 
at  the  time  fixed  in  the  state  constitution,  and  this  amend 
ment  was  agreed  to,  in  spite  of  Butler's  opposition,  by  115 
to?l. 

///The  Georgia  Bill  was  the  subject  of  an  exciting  battle 
in  the  Senate  where  Trumbull  supported  the  Bingham 
proviso  against  the  efforts  of  Morton,  Howard,  Drake, 
Stewart,  Sumner,  Wilson,  and  all  of  the  new  Senators 
from  the  South,  two  of  whom  (those  of  Texas)  were 
hastily  admitted  in  time  to  vote  on  the  Georgia  question. 
The  first  vote  was  on  the  motion  of  Williams,  of  Oregon, 
to  prolong  the  life  of  the  existing  legislature  till  Novem- 


CROSSING  THE  RUBICON  299 

ber,  1872.  One  effect  of  so  doing  would  be  to  save  a  seat 
in  the  United  States  Senate  for  a  man  who  had  been 
elected  unlawfully.  The  vacancy  would  occur  on  March  4, 
1871,  and  could  be  lawfully  filled  only  by  the  legislature 
chosen  next  preceding  that  date. 

Williams's  motion  was  voted  down  April  14,  by  a  major 
ity  of  one.  On  the  19th  of  the  same  month,  Trumbull 
made  one  of  the  great  speeches  of  his  public  career,  filling 
twelve  columns  of  the  Congressional  Globe,  on  the  Georgia 
question,  demolishing  the  Bullock  case  and  stirring  pub 
lic  opinion  strongly.  The  struggle  was  protracted  till  July 
8,  when  the  bill  passed,  as  Trumbull  desired,  with  the 
Bingham  proviso. 

An  editorial  in  the  Nation  of  May  26,  1870,  tells,  in 
brief  compass,  what  took  place  while  the  Georgia  Bill  was 
the  matter  of  chief  concern  in  the  Senate: 

Our  readers  may  remember  that  when  Mr.  Trumbull,  some 
weeks  ago,  made  his  severe  summing  up  of  the  "Georgia  diffi 
culty,"  he  hinted  in  very  plain  terms  that  the  patriots  of  the 
Bullock  faction  had  been  guilty  of  both  corruption  and  intim 
idation  in  trying  to  get  their  "Reconstruction"  bill  through, 
installing  them  in  office  for  two  years.  By  many  people  this 
charge  was  ascribed  partly  to  Mr.  TrumbulPs  hatred  of  the 
black  man,  and  partly  to  his  hostility  to  the  pure  and  good  of 
all  colors,  and  doubtless  some  asked  themselves,  as  they  asked 
themselves  when  the  Traitor  Ross  refused  to  give  up  his  chair 
to  Senator  Revels,  for  the  sake  of  the  dramatic  unities:  "What 
else  can  we  expect  of  a  man  who  voted  No  on  the  Eleventh 
Article?" 

[A  committee  of  the  Senate,  appointed  to  look  into  the  mat 
ter,  had  taken  a  mass  of  testimony  and  submitted  a  report.] 
Their  finding  is  —  and  we  blush  to  write  it  —  that  Bullock  and 
his  friends  have  been  for  a  long  time  in  Washington,  complain 
ing  of  the  Ku-Klux  Klan,  and  asking  fresh  guarantees  for  "the 
persecuted  Unionists"  of  Georgia;  that  somehow  or  other, 
while  there,  they  have  had  a  great  deal  of  money  and  railroad 
bonds,  which  they  seemed  to  have  no  particular  use  for,  them- 


300  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

selves;  that  they  tried  unsuccessfully  to  purchase  the  votes  of 
Senators  Carpenter  and  Tipton  against  the  Bingham  amend 
ments;  that  harrowing  reports  of  "outrages"  in  Georgia  were 
actually  prepared  to  order,  like  boots  or  dinners,  furnished  to 
them  and  paid  for;  that  the  writing  of  threatening  letters  to 
Senators  was  procured  in  the  same  manner;  that  $4000  was 
paid  to  that  good  and  great  man,  Colonel  Forney,  of  the  Wash 
ington  Chronicle,  for  "advertising  and  printing  speeches  and 
documents,"  the  Colonel's  editorial  denunciations  of  the  oppo 
nents  of  the  Georgia  Bill,  we  suppose,  being  thrown  into  the 
bargain.  The  Washington  correspondent  of  the  Boston  Adver 
tiser  —  a  wicked  fellow  —  adds  that  some  of  the  witnesses 
when  first  examined  "were  very  loath  to  tell  what  they  knew, 
and  indulged  in  the  tallest  kind  of  lying."  The  report  of  the 
committee  is  unanimous. 

The  result  of  this  expose  probably  will  be  that  the  Georgia 
question  will  at  last,  after  a  year's  delay,  filled  with  this  lying 
and  intrigue  and  corruption,  be  settled  at  the  outset,  by  hand 
ing  the  State  Government  back  to  the  electors  on  the  same 
terms  as  Virginia,  and  letting  the  "Bullock  faction"  go  home 
and  find  some  means  of  gaining  an  honest  livelihood.  .  .//We 
cannot  pass  from  this  affair,  however,  without  bearing  hearty 
testimony  to  the  services  which  Mr.  Trumbull  has,  by  his  atti 
tude  in  it  from  the  very  beginning,  rendered  to  truth,  justice, 
good  government,  and  civilization.  He  has  made  every  honest 
man,  North  and  South,  his  debtor,  not  for  being  able,  for  this 
he  cannot  help,  but  for  being  bold,  and  hitting  hard.  "By 
Time,"  says  Hosea  Biglow,  "  I  du  like  a  man  that  ain't  afeared ! " 


CHAPTER  XX 

IMPEACHMENT 

EARLY  in  1867,  Congress  passed  an  act,  originating  in 
the  Senate,  to  prevent  the  President  from  removing,  with 
out  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  any  office-holders  whose 
appointment  required  confirmation  by  that  body.  In  its 
inception  it  was  not  intended  to  include  members  of  the 
Cabinet,  but  merely  to  protect  postmasters,  collectors, 
and  other  appointees  of  that  grade,  whom  the  President, 
in  his  stump  speech  at  St.  Louis,  had  declared  his  inten 
tion  to  "kick  out."  Accordingly  a  clause  was  inserted 
excluding  Cabinet  officers  from  the  operation  of  the  mea 
sure. 

When  the  bill  came  before  the  House,  a  motion  was 
made  to  strike  out  this  exception,  and  it  was  at  first  nega 
tived  by  a  majority  of  four.  Subsequently  the  motion 
was  renewed  and  carried,  but  the  Senate  refused  to  con 
cur.  The  differences  between  the  two  houses  were  referred 
to  a  committee  of  conference  of  which  Sherman  was  a 
member.  He  had  been  extremely  resolute  heretofore  in 
opposing  the  attempt  to  include  members  of  the  Cabinet, 
because  he  held  that  no  gentleman  would  be  willing  to 
remain  a  member  after  receiving  an  intimation  from  his 
chief  that  his  services  were  no  longer  desired.  To  this 
Senator  Hendricks  replied  that  it  was  not  a  question  of 
getting  rid  of  a  gentleman,  but  of  a  man  of  different  stamp, 
who  might  be  in  the  Cabinet  and  desire  to  stay  in.  "The 
very  person  who  ought  to  be  turned  out,"  he  said,  "is  the 
very  person  who  will  stay  in."  The  Conference  Committee 


302  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

reported  the  following  proviso,  which  was  adopted  by 
both  houses: 

That  the  Secretaries  of  State,  of  the  Treasury,  of  War,  of  the 
Navy,  and  of  the  Interior,  the  Postmaster-General,  and  the 
Attorney-General  shall  hold  their  offices  respectively  for  and 
during  the  term  of  the  President  by  whom  they  may  have  been 
appointed  and  for  one  month  thereafter,  subject  to  removal  by 
and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 

Senator  Doolittle,  who  opposed  the  bill  in  toto,  pointed 
out  that  it  did  not  accomplish  what  it  aimed  at :  that  is, 
it  did  not  prevent  the  President  from  removing  the  Secre 
tary  of  War.  He  showed  that  Stanton  had  never  been 
appointed  by  Johnson  at  all.  He  was  merely  holding  office 
by  sufferance.  The  term  of  the  President  by  whom  he 
was  appointed  had  expired  and  the  "one  month  there 
after"  had  also  expired;  therefore,  the  proviso  reported 
by  the  Conference  Committee  was  futile  to  protect  him. 

Sherman  replied  that  the  proviso  was  not  intended  to 
apply  to  a  particular  case  or  to  the  present  President,  and 
that  Doolittle's  interpretation  of  the  phrase  as  not  pro 
tecting  Stanton  in  office  was  the  true  interpretation.  He 
added  that  if  he  supposed  that  Stanton,  or  any  other 
Cabinet  officer,  was  so  wanting  in  manhood  and  honor  as 
to  hold  his  office  after  receiving  an  intimation  that  his 
services  were  no  longer  desired,  he  (Sherman)  would  con 
sent  to  his  removal  at  any  time.  This  declaration  com 
mitted  Sherman  in  advance  to  a  definite  opinion  as  to  the 
President's  right  to  remove  Stanton  whenever  he  pleased. 

The  bill  passed  with  the  clause  above  quoted,  all  the 
Republican  Senators  present  voting  for  it  except  Van 
Winkle  and  Willey,  of  West  Virginia.  Trumbull  was 
recorded  in  the  affirmative. 

At  the  first  Cabinet  meeting  of  February  26,  the  bill 
was  considered,  and  all  the  members  thought  that  it  ought 


IMPEACHMENT  303 

to  be  vetoed.  "Stanton  was  very  emphatic,"  says  Welles, 
"and  seemed  glad  of  an  opportunity  to  be  in  accord  with 
his  colleagues."  (He  had  previously  given  his  sanction 
to  the  Stevens  Reconstruction  Bill  in  opposition  to  his 
colleagues.)  The  President  said  he  would  be  glad  if  Stan- 
ton  would  prepare  a  veto  or  make  suggestions  for  one. 
Stanton  pleaded  want  of  time.  The  President  then  turned 
to  Seward,  who  said  that  he  would  undertake  it  if  Stan- 
ton  would  help  him.  This  was  agreed  to,  and  the  veto 
(based  on  the  ground  of  unconstitutionality)  was  pre 
pared  and  submitted  by  them  at  the  Cabinet  meeting  of 
March  1.  Stanton  must  have  been  aware  of  the  colloquy 
between  Sherman  and  Doolittle  in  which  his  name  was 
mentioned,  and  he  probably  agreed  with  them  in  the 
opinion  that  he  was  not  protected  by  the  Tenure-of -Office 
Act.  If  he  had  thought  differently  he  would  hardly  have 
favored  the  veto,  or  joined  with  Seward  in  writing  it.  The 
veto  message  was  sent  in  on  March  2,  1867,  and  the  bill 
was  passed  by  two  thirds  of  both  houses  the  same  day. 

Few  persons  at  the  present  time  believe  that  there 
was  any  substantial  ground  for  the  impeachment  of  An 
drew  Johnson.  The  unsparing  condemnation  of  history 
has  been  visited  upon  the  whole  proceeding,  and  the  com 
monly  received  opinidn  now  is  that  if  the  Senate  had  voted 
him  guilty  as  charged  in  the  articles  of  impeachment  a  pre 
cedent  would  have  been  made  whereby  the  Republic  would 
have  been  exposed  to  grave  dangers.  Trumbull  was  one  of 
the  so-called  "  Seven  Traitors  "  who  prevented  that  catas 
trophe. 

The  first  session  of  the  Fortieth  Congress  began  on 
March  4, 1867.  The  radical  wing  of  the  Republican  party 
had  been  muttering  about  impeachment  even  earlier,  and 
a  resolution  had  been  passed  by  the  House  on  the  7th  of 
January  preceding,  authorizing  the  Judiciary  Committee 


304  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

to  inquire  into  the  official  conduct  of  the  President  and  to 
report  whether  he  had  been  guilty  of  acts  designed  or 
calculated  to  "overthrow,  subvert,  or  corrupt  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,  or  any  department  or  office 
thereof."  On  the  28th  of  February,  the  committee  re 
ported  that  it  had  examined  a  large  number  of  witnesses 
and  collected  many  documents,  but  had  not  been  able  to 
reach  a  conclusion  and  that  it  would  not  feel  justified  in 
making  a  final  report  upon  so  important  a  matter  in  the 
expiring  hours  of  this  Congress,  even  if  it  had  been  able 
to  make  an  affirmative  one.  On  the  29th  of  March  follow 
ing,  the  committee  was  instructed  to  continue  its  investi 
gation. 

It  accordingly  continued  its  work  and  voted  on  the  1st 
of  June,  by  5  to  4,  that  there  was  no  evidence  that  would 
warrant  impeachment;  but  at  the  earnest  solicitation  of 
the  minority  it  kept  the  case  open  during  the  recess  which 
Congress  took  from  July  to  November.  In  this  interval 
one  member  of  the  committee  changed  his  vote  and  this 
change  made  the  committee  stand  5  to  4  in  favor  of  im 
peachment.  The  report  of  the  committee  was  presented 
by  Boutwell,  of  Massachusetts,  November  25,  accom 
panied  by  a  resolution  that  Andrew  Johnson,  President 
of  the  United  States,  be  impeached  for  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors.  James  F.  Wilson,  of  Iowa,  chairman  of 
the  committee,  submitted  a  minority  report  adverse  to 
impeachment,  and  the  House  on  the  7th  of  December  sus 
tained  Wilson  and  rejected  the  majority  report  by  a  vote 
of  57  to  108.  Among  those  voting  against  impeachment 
were  Allison,  Bingham,  Elaine^  Dawes,  Poland,  Spalding, 
and  Washburne,  of  Illinois.  On  the  other  side  were  Thad- 
deus  Stevens,  B.  F.  Butler,  and  John  A.  Logan.  On  the 
5th  of  August,  the  President  sent  to  Stanton  a  note  of 
three  lines  saying  that  his  resignation  as  Secretary  of  War 


IMPEACHMENT  305 

would  be  accepted.  Stanton  replied  on  the  same  day 
declining  to  resign  before  the  next  meeting  of  Congress. 
The  President  thereupon  decided  to  remove  him  regard 
less  of  consequences,  but  he  felt  the  necessity  of  finding 
somebody  to  take  the  office  who  would  be  acceptable  to 
the  country.  His  choice  fell  upon  General  Grant,  who  was 
perhaps  the  only  person  whose  appointment  under  the 
circumstances  would  not  have  caused  a  disturbance.  No 
plausible  objection  could  be  raised  against  him  in  any 
quarter,  not  even  by  Stanton  himself.  Grant  reluctantly 
consented  to  accept  the  place.  Accordingly  one  week 
after  Stanton  had  refused  to  resign,  the  President  sus 
pended  him  and  appointed  Grant  Secretary  ad  interim 
and  so  notified  Stanton.  The  latter  had  undoubtedly 
made  plans  for  retaining  the  office  in  defiance  of  the 
President  and  was  chagrined  to  find  that  a  man  had 
been  appointed  whom  he  could  not  resist.  Although  a 
few  months  earlier  he  had  advised  the  President  that 
the  Tenure-of-Office  Law  was  unconstitutional  and  had 
assisted  in  writing  the  message  vetoing  it  on  that  ground, 
he  now  denied  the  President's  power  to  suspend  him  with 
out  the  consent  of  the  Senate,  but  said  that  he  yielded  to 
superior  force.  He  then  surrendered  his  office  to  Grant. 
Although  the  usual  expressions  of  confidence  and  esteem 
were  exchanged  between  himself  and  his  successor,  a  resi 
due  of  asperity  remained  in  the  breast  of  the  retiring 
Secretary,  who  felt  that  the  head  of  the  army  ought  not 
to  have  enabled  the  President  to  get  the  better  of  him. 
But  as  a  matter  of  fact  Grant  did  not  want  the  office.  He 
accepted  it  only  because  he  feared  that  trouble  might 
follow  from  the  appointment  of  somebody  less  familiar 
than  himself  with  conditions  prevailing  in  the  South. 

On  the  13th  of  January,  1868,  the  Senate,  having  con 
sidered  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  President  for  the  sus- 


306  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

pension  of  Stanton  from  office,  non-concurred  in  the  same 
and  sent  notice  to  this  effect  to  the  President  and  to  Grant. 
The  latter  considered  his  functions  as  Secretary  ad  inte 
rim  terminated  from  the  moment  of  receipt  of  the  notice 
and  so  notified  the  President,  at  the  same  time  locking 
the  door  of  his  room  and  handing  the  key  to  the  person 
in  charge  of  the  Adjutant-General's  office  in  the  same 
building. 

Under  the  terms  of  the  Tenure-of-Office  Law,  Stan- 
ton  returned  and  resumed  his  former  place. 

On  the  27th  of  January,  a  motion  was  made  by  Mr. 
Spalding  in  the  House  of  Representatives  that  the  Com 
mittee  on  Reconstruction  be  authorized  to  inquire  what 
combinations  had  been  made  to  obstruct  the  due  execu 
tion  of  law  and  to  report  what  action,  if  any,  was  neces 
sary  in  consequence  thereof.  This  resolution  was  adopted 
by  a  vote  of  99  to  31.  A  few  days  later,  on  the  motion  of 
Thaddeus  Stevens  the  evidence  taken  by  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary  on  the  impeachment  question  was  re 
ferred  to  the  Committee  on  Reconstruction.  Certain  cor 
respondence  that  had  passed  between  General  Grant  and 
President  Johnson  relating  to  the  retirement  of  the  former 
from  the  War  Office  was  also  sent  to  the  same  committee. 

The  correspondence  between  General  Grant  and  the 
President  here  referred  to  gives  a  fresh  illustration  of 
Andrew  Johnson's  want  of  tact  in  dealing  with  men  and 
events.  He  first  made  an  accusation  that  Grant  had  failed 
to  keep  a  promise  that  he  had  previously  given  that  "if 
you  [Grant]  should  conclude  that  it  would  be  your  duty 
to  surrender  the  department  to  Mr.  Stanton,  upon  action 
in  his  favor  by  the  Senate,  you  were  to  return  the  office  to 
me,  prior  to  a  decision  by  the  Senate,  in  order  that  if  I  de 
sired  to  do  so  I  might  designate  somebody  to  succeed  you." 
This  letter  was  dated  January  31,  1868.  Grant  replied 


IMPEACHMENT  307 

(February  3)  denying  that  he  had  made  any  such  pro 
mise,  and  saying  that  the  President  in  making  this  accu 
sation  had  sought  to  involve  him  in  a  resistance  to  law  and 
thus  to  destroy  his  character  before  the  country.  Several 
other  letters  followed,  including  one  from  each  member  of 
the  Cabinet,  who  was  present  when  the  matter  was  talked 
of  between  the  two  principals,  all  confirming  the  Presi 
dent's  statements.  The  letters  of  Browning  and  Seward, 
however,  tended  to  show  that  the  President's  desire  was 
to  make  up  a  case  for  the  Supreme  Court,  to  decide 
whether  he  had  a  right  under  the  Constitution  to  remove 
a  Cabinet  officer  or  not,  and  that  he  supposed  that  Grant 
had  promised  to  cooperate  with  him  to  promote  that  end; 
but  that  whatever  Grant  might  have  promised,  the  sud 
den  action  of  the  Senate  led  him  to  believe  that  he  could 
not  delay  his  retirement  without  subjecting  himself  to  the 
chance  of  fine  and  imprisonment  under  the  Tenure-of- 
Office  Law.1 

1  On  the  3d  of  August,  1868,  shortly  after  his  acquittal,  Johnson  wrote  a 
letter  to  Benjamin  C.  Truman,  his  former  secretary,  which  gives  his  estimate 
of  Grant  and  throws  some  new  light  on  the  politics  of  the  time.  There  is  nothing 
to  show  which  of  the  Blairs  was  referred  to  as  giving  him  advice  as  to  the  make 
up  of  his  Cabinet,  but  it  was  probably  Montgomery.  He  says: 

"  I  may  have  erred  in  not  carrying  out  Mr.  Blair's  request  by  putting  into  my 
Cabinet  Morton,  Andrew,  and  Greeley.  I  do  not  say  I  should  have  done  so  had 
I  my  career  to  go  over  again,  for  it  would  have  been  hard  to  have  put  out  Seward 
and  Welles,  who  had  served  satisfactorily  under  the  greatest  man  of  all.  Mor 
ton  would  have  been  a  tower  of  strength,  however,  and  so  would  Andrew.  No 
senator  would  have  dared  to  vote  for  impeachment  with  those  two  men  in  my 
Cabinet.  Grant  was  untrue.  He  meant  well  for  the  first  two  years,  and  much 
that  I  did  that  was  denounced  was  through  his  advice.  He  was  the  strongest 
man  of  all  in  the  support  of  my  policy  for  a  long  while  and  did  the  best  he  could 
for  nearly  two  years  in  strengthening  my  hands  against  the  adversaries  of  con 
stitutional  government.  But  Grant  saw  the  radical  handwriting  on  the  wall  and 
heeded  it.  I  did  not  see  it,  or,  if  seeing  it,  did  not  heed  it.  Grant  did  the  proper 
thing  to  save  Grant,  but  it  pretty  nearly  ruined  me.  I  might  have  done  the 
same  thing  under  the  same  circumstances.  At  any  rate,  most  men  would.  .  .  . 
Grant  had  come  out  of  the  war  the  greatest  of  all.  It  is  true  that  the  rebels  were 
on  their  last  legs  and  that  the  Southern  ports  were  pretty  effectually  blockaded, 
and  that  Grant  was  furnished  with  all  the  men  that  were  needed,  or  could  be 


308  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

The  quarrel  between  Johnson  and  Grant  did  not,  how 
ever,  help  the  impeachers,  who  were  voted  down  in  the 
Committee  on  Reconstruction,  February  13,  by  6  to  3, 
Stevens  being  in  the  minority. 

Stanton  was  now  in  a  position  of  great  embarrassment, 
being  a  member  of  the  Cabinet  by  appointment  of  the 
Senate,  but  unable  to  attend  Cabinet  meetings.  He  was 
endowed  with  sufficient  assurance  for  most  purposes,  but 
not  enough  to  go  to  the  White  House  and  take  a  seat 
among  gentlemen  who  would  have  looked  upon  him  as 
an  intruder  and  a  spy.  Johnson  was  advised  by  General 
Sherman  and  others  to  leave  him  severely  alone.1 

If  this  advice  had  been  followed,  Stanton  would  have 
been  exposed  to  ridicule  ere  long  and  the  Senate  could  not 
have  helped  him  to  ward  it  off.  But  Johnson  came  to  his 
rescue  by  making  a  fresh  attempt  to  oust  him.  Eight  days 
after  Thaddeus  Stevens's  impeachment  resolution  had 
been  voted  down,  two  to  one,  in  his  own  committee,  the 
President  sent  a  note  to  Edwin  M.  Stanton  saying  that 
he  had  removed  him  from  the  office  of  Secretary  of  War 
and  appointed  Lorenzo  Thomas,  the  Adjutant-General 
of  the  Army,  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim.  The  new 
appointee  immediately  presented  himself  at  the  War 
Office  and  showing  his  authority  demanded  possession, 
which  Stanton  refused  to  yield. 

The  tables  were  instantly  turned.  Stanton  was  no 
longer  looked  upon  as  holding  an  office  with  nothing  to  do 
except  to  draw  his  salary,  but  as  a  champion  of  the  people 
defending  them  against  a  law-breaking  President.  Grant 
had  warned  Johnson  months  before  that  the  public  looked 

spared,  after  he  took  command  of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac.  But  Grant  helped 
more  than  any  one  else  to  bring  about  this  condition.   His  great  victories  at 
Donelson,  Vicksburg,  and  Missionary  Ridge  all  contributed  to  Appomattox." 
(Century  Magazine,  January,  1913.) 
1  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  vi,  104. 


IMPEACHMENT  309 

upon  the  Tenure-of -Office  Law  as  constitutional  until 
pronounced  otherwise  by  the  courts,  and  that  although 
an  astute  lawyer  might  explain  it  differently  the  common 
people  would  "give  it  the  effect  intended  by  its  framers," 
that  is,  to  protect  Stanton.1 

This  was  sound  advice.  The  revulsion  in  the  public 
mind  was  electrical  in  suddenness  and  strength.  The 
House  of  Representatives,  which,  on  the  7th  of  Decem 
ber,  by  nearly  two  to  one  had  rejected  an  impeachment 
resolution  recommended  by  its  Judiciary  Committee,  now 
(February  24)  adopted  the  same  resolution  by  128  to  47. 
Every  Republican  member  who  was  present,  including 
James  F.  Wilson,  voted  in  the  affirmative.  A  committee  of 
seven  was  appointed  to  prepare  articles  of  impeachment 
and  present  them  to  the  Senate.  Nine  such  articles  were 
reported  to  the  House  on  the  2d  of  March  and  two  addi 
tional  ones  on  the  following  day,  all  of  which  were  agreed 
to,  and  seven  members  of  the  House  were  appointed  as 
managers  to  conduct  the  impeachment,  namely:  John  A. 
Bingham,  George  S.  Bout  well,  James  F.  Wilson,  Benja 
min  F.  Butler,  Thomas  Williams,  John  A.  Logan,  and 
Thaddeus  Stevens. 

The  trial  began  on  the  5th  of  March,  Chief  Justice 
Chase  presiding.  The  President  was  represented  by 
Henry  Stanbery,  Benjamin  R.  Curtis,  William  S.  Groes- 
beck,  William  M.  Evarts,  and  Thomas  A.  R.  Nelson. 
The  House  managers  were  overmatched  in  point  of  legal 
ability  by  the  President's  counsel,  and  still  more  by  the 
facts  in  the  case.  The  first  eight  articles  of  impeachment 
were  based  upon  the  President's  attempt  to  remove 
Stanton  and  appoint  Thomas  as  Secretary  of  War  ad 
interim,  but  inasmuch  as  Senator  Sherman  had  publicly 
declared  that  Stanton,  being  an  appointee  of  Lincoln, 

1  McPherson,  Reconstruction,  p.  307. 


310  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

was  not  protected  by  the  Tenure-of -Office  Law,  and  that 
he  ought  to  be  removed  anyhow  if  he  refused  to  resign  at 
the  President's  request,  it  was  deemed  best  by  the  im- 
peachers  to  divide  the  offense  into  two  parts.  So  the  first 
article  related  only  to  the  removal  of  Stanton  and  the 
second  only  to  the  appointment  of  Thomas.  This,  it  was 
believed,  would  enable  Sherman  to  vote  not  guilty  on  the 
first,  but  guilty  on  the  second.  He  could  vote  that  the 
President  had  a  perfect  right  to  remove  his  Secretary  of 
War,  but  no  right  to  fill  the  vacancy,  and  that  any  attempt 
on  his  part  to  do  so  would  be  a  high  misdemeanor,  pun 
ishable  by  impeachment  and  removal  from  office.  And  so 
it  turned  out  as  regarded  Sherman's  vote,  and  also  that  of 
Senator  Howe,  of  Wisconsin,  who  shared  Sherman's  view 
that  Stanton  was  not  protected  by  the  law. 

The  ninth  article  charged  the  President  with  having  a 
conversation  with  General  Emory,  who  commanded  the 
military  department  of  Washington,  and  saying  to  him 
that  that  portion  of  the  Army  Appropriation  Act,  which 
provided  that  all  orders  relating  to  military  affairs  should 
be  issued  through  the  General  of  the  Army,  or  the  officer 
next  in  rank,  and  not  otherwise,  was.  unconstitutional, 
thus  seeking  to  induce  said  Emory  to  violate  the  provi 
sions  of  said  act. 

The  tenth  article  recited  that  Andrew  Johnson  did  at 
certain  times  and  places  make  and  "deliyer  with  a  loud 
voice  certain  intemperate,  inflammatory,  and  scandalous 
harangues  and  did  therein  utter  loud  threats  and  bitter 
menaces  as  well  against  Congress  as  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  duly  enacted  thereby,  amid  the  cries,  jeers, 
and  laughter  of  the  multitudes  then  assembled . ' '  Extracts 
from  the  speeches  were  embodied  in  this  article,  "by 
means  whereof  the  said  Andrew  Johnson  has  brought  the 
high  office  of  President  of  the  United  States  into  contempt, 


IMPEACHMENT  311 

ridicule,  and  disgrace,  to  the  great  scandal  of  all  good 
citizens,  whereby  said  Andrew  Johnson,  President  of  the 
United  States,  did  commit,  and  was  then  and  there  guilty 
of,  a  high  misdemeanor  in  office."  This  article  was  the 
production  of  General  Butler. 

The  eleventh  article  embraced  the  charge  of  seeking  to 
prevent  Stanton  from  resuming  his  office  as  Secretary  of 
War,  but  not  that  of  removing  him  from  it  (this  to  accom 
modate  Sherman  and  Howe),  and  a  melange  of  all  the 
charges  in  the  preceding  articles,  ending  with  a  charge 
that  the  President  had  in  various  ways  attempted  to  pre 
vent  the  execution  of  the  Reconstruction  Acts  of  Con 
gress.  Thaddeus  Stevens  considered  it  the  only  one  of  the 
series  that  was  bomb-proof,  but  the  Chief  Justice  ruled 
that  the  Stanton  matter  was  the  only  thing  of  substance 
in  it,  the  residue  being  mere  objurgation.  The  answer 
filed  by  the  President's  counsel  set  forth : 

First,  that  the  Tenure-of-Office  Law,  in  so  far  as  it 
sought  to  prevent  the  President  from  removing  a  member 
of  his  Cabinet,  was  unconstitutional;  that  such  was  the 
opinion  of  each  member  of  his  Cabinet,  including  Stanton, 
and  that  Stanton  among  others  advised  him  to  veto  it; 

Second,  that  even  if  the  law  were  in  harmony  with  the 
Constitution  the  Secretary  of  War  was  not  included  in  its 
prohibitions,  since  the  term  for  which  he  was  appointed 
had  expired  before  the  President  sought  to  remove  him; 

Third,  that  it  seemed  desirable,  in  view  of  the  foregoing 
facts,  to  secure  a  judicial  determination  of  all  doubts 
respecting  the  rights  and  powers  of  the  parties  concerned, 
from  the  tribunal  created  for  that  purpose;  and  to  this 
end  he  had  taken  the  steps  complained  of,  and  that  he 
had  committed  no  intentional  violation  of  law. 

In  answer  to  the  eleventh  article,  the  defendant  said 
that  the  matters  contained  therein,  except  the  charge  of 


312  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

preventing  the  return  of  Stanton  to  the  office  of  Secre 
tary  of  War,  did  not  allege  the  commission  or  omission 
of  any  act  whatever  whereby  issue  could  be  joined  or 
answer  made.  As  to  the  Stanton  matter,  his  answer  was 
already  given  in  the  answer  to  the  first  article. 

There  were  two  theories  rife  in  the  Senate  and  in  the 
country,  respecting  this  trial.  One  was  that  impeach 
ment  was  a  judicial  proceeding  where  charges  of  treason, 
bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  or  misdemeanors  were  to  be 
alleged  and  proved;  the  Senators  sitting  as  judges,  hear 
ing  testimony  and  argument,  and  voting  guilty  or  not 
guilty.  This  opinion  was  generally  accepted  at  first,  both 
in  and  out  of  Congress,  and  was  the  correct  one.  The 
other  was  that  impeachment  was  a  political  proceeding 
which  the  whole  people  were  as  competent  to  decide  as 
the  Senate.  This  was  the  view  taken  by  Charles  Sumner 
and  avowed  by  him  in  his  written  opinion  while  sitting  as 
one  of  the  sworn  judges  to  vote  guilty  or  not  guilty,  and 
it  came  to  be  the  opinion  prevailing  in  the  Republican 
party  generally  before  the  case  was  ended.  According  to 
this  view  it  was  a  question  for  the  people  to  decide  in  their 
character  as  an  unsworn  "multitudinous  jury."  No 
method  of  arriving  at,  or  of  recording,  their  verdict  was 
suggested  or  deemed  necessary.  To  a  person  holding  this 
view  the  trial  itself  was  logically  a  waste  of  time,  since  a 
decision  could  have  been  reached  without  a  scrap  of  testi 
mony,  or  a  single  speech,  on  either  side. 

The  trial  lasted  from  the  5th  of  March  to  the  16th  of 
May,  and  the  heat  and  fury  of  the  contest  both  in  and 
out  of  Congress  became  more  intense  from  day  to  day. 
The  impeachers  lost  ground  in  the  estimation  of  the 
sober-minded  and  reflecting  classes  by  their  intemperate 
language,  by  their  frantic  efforts  to  bring  outside  pressure 
to  bear  upon  Senators,  and  especially  by  their  refusal  to 


IMPEACHMENT  313 

admit  testimony  offered  to  show  that  the  President's 
intent  was  not  to  defy  the  law,  but  to  get  a  judicial  deci 
sion  as  to  what  the  law  was.  The  Chief  Justice  ruled  that 
testimony  to  prove  intent  was  admissible,  and  Senator 
Sherman  asked  to  have  it  admitted,  but  it  was  excluded 
by  a  majority  vote.  Testimony  to  prove  that  Stanton 
advised  the  President  that  the  Tenure-of-Office  Law  was 
unconstitutional  and  that  he  aided  in  writing  the  veto 
message  was  excluded  by  the  same  vote.  Gideon  Welles, 
under  date  April  18,1  says  that  Sumner,  who  had  previ 
ously  moved  to  admit  all  testimony  offered,  absented  him 
self  when  it  was  proposed  to  call  the  Cabinet  officers  as 
witnesses.  Monday,  May  11,  the  case  was  closed  and  the 
Senate  retired  for  deliberation.  The  session  was  secret, 
but  the  views  of  Senators,  so  far  as  expressed,  leaked  out. 
"Grimes  boldly  denounced  all  the  articles,"  says  Welles, 
"and  the  whole  proceeding.  Of  course  he  received  the 
indignant  censure  of  all  radicals;  but  Trumbull  and  Fes- 
senden,  who  followed  later,  came  in  for  even  more  violent 
denunciation  and  more  wrathful  abuse." 

The  vote  was  not  taken  until  the  16th,  and  the  inter 
vening  time  was  employed  by  the  impeachers  in  bringing 
influence  to  bear  upon  Senators  who  had  not  definitely 
declared  how  they  would  vote.  There  were  54  votes  in  all ; 
two  thirds  were  required  to  convict.  There  were  12  Demo 
crats,  counting  Dixon,  Doolittle,  and  Norton,  who  had 
been  elected  as  Republicans,  but  had  been  classed  as 
Democrats  since  they  had  taken  part  in  the  Philadelphia 
Convention  of  August,  1866.  If  seven  Republicans 
should  join  the  twelve  in  voting  not  guilty,  the  President 
would  be  acquitted.  Three  had  declared  in  the  conference 
of  Monday,  the  llth,  for  acquittal,  and  they  were  men 
who  could  not  be  swerved  by  persuasion  or  threats  after 

1  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  in,  335. 


314  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

they  had  made  up  their  minds.  If  four  more  should  join 
with  the  three,  impeachment  would  fail.  Welles  names  as 
doubtful  to  the  last  Senators  Anthony  and  Sprague,  of 
Rhode  Island,  Van  Winkle  and  Willey,  of  West  Virginia, 
Frelinghuysen,  of  New  Jersey,  Morgan,  of  New  York, 
Corbett,  of  Oregon,  Cole,  of  California,  Fowler,  of  Ten 
nessee,  Henderson,  of  Missouri,  and  Ross,  of  Kansas.  He 
adds,  May  14: 

The  doubtful  men  do  not  avow  themselves,  which,  I  think,  is 
favorable  to  the  President,  and  the  impeachers  display  distrust 
and  weakness.  Still  their  efforts  are  unceasing  and  almost 
superhuman.  But  some  of  the  more  considerate  journals,  such 
as  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  Chicago  Tribune,  etc.,  rebuke 
the  violent.  The  thinking  and  reflecting  portion  of  the  country, 
even  Republicans,  show  symptoms  of  revolt  against  the  con 
spiracy.1 

The  article  in  the  New  York  Evening  Post  of  May  14, 
two  days  before  the  first  vote  was  taken,  is  a  column  long. 
It  can  only  be  summarized  here. 

So  long  as  the  court  sat,  Hrsays,  decency  forbade  the  dis 
cussion  of  the  issue  elsewhere.  It  characterizes  the  articles  of 
impeachment  in  groups  and  severally,  and  says  Article  XI 
"reads  like  a  jest,  in  charging  solemn  official  acts  of  1868  as 
done  in  pursuance  of  an  extreme  and  excited  declaration,  made 
to  a  crowd,  in  a  political  speech  almost  two  years  before.  .  .  ." 
Impertinent  issues  were  constantly  pressed  upon  the  court  from 
without.  The  New  York  Tribune  demanded  conviction  and 
removal  for  breaking  the  Tenure-of -Office  Act,  because,  it  said, 
the  President  was  guilty  of  drunkenness,  adultery,  treason,  and 
murder.  The  investigation  is  of  a  sudden  changed  in  its  nature 
by  the  advocates  of  conviction  and  becomes  a  matter  of  poli 
tics,  and  no  longer  a  judicial  concern.  Senator  Wilson  leads  off 
by  violating  an  absolutely  fundamental  principle  of  the  life  and 
law  of  every  free  people,  i.e.,  the  principle  that  an  accused  man 
shall  have  the  benefit  of  a  doubt,  and  be  believed  innocent  until 
1  Diary  of  Gideon  Welle*,  in,  355. 


IMPEACHMENT  315 

proved  guilty.  Wilson  says:  "I  shall  give  the  benefit  of  what 
ever  doubts  have  arisen  to  perplex  and  embarrass  me  to  my 
country  rather  than  to  the  Chief  Magistrate."  .  .  .  Here  was  a 
plain  confession  that  to  obtain  conviction  a  "first  principle  of 
public  law  must  be  sacrificed;  that  one  prominent  judge,  at 
least,  would  condemn  the  accused,  however  conscientiously, 
from  other  than  judicial  motives."  It  describes  graphically 
the  pressure  brought  to  bear  upon  the  court  and  its  shameless 
character,  and  quotes  from  the  New  York  Tribune's  flagrant 
attack  upon  Grimes,  Trumbull,  and  Fessenden,  "three  of  the 
most  honored  statesmen  and  tried  patriots  in  the  land." 
"Thus,"  it  says,  "a  prominent  party  organ  tries  to  instigate 
the  passions  of  the  multitude  to  drive  the  court  to  the  judg 
ment  it  desires." 

"  In  a  meeting  of  the  Republican  Campaign  Club  on  Tuesday 
evening,"  it  continues,  "Charles  S.  Spencer  said  that  'as  a  man 
of  peace  and  one  obedient  to  the  laws,  he  would  advise  Senator 
Trumbull  not  to  show  himself  on  the  streets  in  Chicago  during 
the  session  of  the  National  Republican  Convention,  for  he 
feared  that  the  representatives  of  an  indignant  people  wrould 
hang  him  to  the  most  convenient  lamp-post.'  And  the  meeting 
adopted  and  ordered  to  be  sent  to  our  Senators  in  Congress,  a 
resolution,  'that  any  Senator  of  the  United  States  elected  by 
the  votes  of  Union  Republicans,  who  at  this  time  blenches  and 
betrays,  is  infamous,  and  should  be  dishonored  and  execrated 
while  this  free  Government  endures.' " 

The  following  is  from  the  Chicago  Tribune,  May  14, 

1868: 

IMPEACHMENT 

.  .  .  The  man  who  demands  that  each  Republican  Senator 
shall  blindly  vote  for  conviction  upon  each  article  is  a  madman 
or  a  knave.  Why  a  Senator,  -Qf-afty-iHHBkei1  of  Senatoa,  should 
be  at  liberty  to  vote  as  conscience  dictates  on  any  of  the  articles, 
provided  there  be-trorarrctieft-XM*  some  one  of  them,  and  not 
be  at  liberty  to  vote  conscientiously  unless  a  conviction  be 
secured,  is  only  to  be  explained  upon  the  theory  that  the  Presi 
dent  is  expected  to  be  convicted  no  matter  whether  Senators 
think  he  has  been  guilty  or  not.  We  hai^-^Fetestedrand^do 
now  pi^test^-agaiest^l^^egntd^  the 


316  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 


f    ower  a^-rrvoltin    that  the 


people  wmbfijiiatifipH  in  hurling  it  from  pW  tit  thf-firstuppor- 
t  unity.  yVf  prntifist.  flffiypst  fl-ny  wfl.rffl.rf*.  by  the  party  or  {fcny 
portion-of  it  against  any  Senator  who  may,:upQn  the  final  vete, 
feeLcQBstrained  to-yote  -against  conviction  -Hpea-oaey-sevef  al  , 
or  ^ven  all  oilhe  articles.  A  conviction  by  a  free  and  deliberate 
judgment  of  an  honest  court  is  the  only  conviction  that  should 
ever  take  place  on  impeachment;  a  conviction  under  any  other 
circumstances  will  be  a  fatal  error,!  To  denounce  such  Senators 
as  corrupt,  to  assail  them  with  contumely  and  upbraid  them 
with  treachery  for  failing  to  understand  the  law  in  the  same 
light  as  their  assailants,  would  be  unfortunate  folly,  to  call  it 
by  the  mildest  term;  and  to  attempt  to  drive  these  Senators 
out  of  the  party  for  refusing  to  commit  perjury,  as  they  regard 
it,  would  cause  a  reaction  that  might  prove  fatal  not  only  to 
the  supremacy  of  the  Republican  party,  but  to  its  very  exist 
ence.  Those  rash  papers  which  have  undertaken  to  ostracise 
Senators  —  men  like  Trumbull,  Sherman,  Fessenden,  Grimes, 
Howe,  Henderson,  Frelinghuysen,  Fowler,  and  others  —  are  but 
aiding  the  Copperheads  in  the  dismemberment  of  our  party. 

From  the  Nation,  May  14,  1868. 

.  .  .  Can  any  party  afford  to  treat  its  leading  men  as  a  part  of 
the  Republican  press  has  been  treating  leading  Republicans 
during  the  last  few  weeks?  Senators  of  the  highest  character, 
who,  in  being  simply  honest  and  in  having  a  mind  of  their  own, 
render  more  service  to  the  country  than  fifty  thousand  of  the 
windy  blatherskites  who  assail  them,  have  been  abused  like 
pickpockets,  simply  because  they  chose  to  think.  We  have, 
during  the  last  week,  heard  language  applied  to  Mr.  Fessenden 
and  Mr.  Trumbull,  for  instance,  which  was  fit  only  for  a  com 
pound  of  Benedict  Arnold  and  John  Morrissey,  and  all  their 
colleagues  have  been  warned  beforehand,  that  if  they  pleaded 
their  oaths  as  an  excuse  for  differing  from  anybody  who  hap 
pened  to  edit  a  newspaper,  they  would  be  held  up  to  execration 
as  knaves  and  hypocrites.  Now,  the  class  of  men  who  are  most 
needed  in  our  politics  just  now  are  high-minded,  independent 
men,  with  their  hands  clean  and  souls  of  their  own.  Their 
errors  of  judgment  are  worth  bearing  with  for  the  sake  of  their 
character.  Yet  this  class  is  becoming  smaller  and  smaller,  fall- 


IMPEACHMENT  317 

ing  more  and  more  into  disrepute.  The  class  of  roaring,  corrupt, 
ignorant  demagogues,  who  are  always  on  "the  right  side"  with 
regard  to  all  party  measures,  grows  apace;  and,  if  we  are  not 
greatly  mistaken,  if  the  Republican  party  does  not  make  short 
work  with  them  before  long,  they  will  make  short  work  of  it.  ... 

When  it  became  known  that  Grimes,  Trumbull,  and 
Fessenden  would  vote  not  guilty,  the  pressure  from  out 
side  was  redoubled  upon  others  who  had  been  reckoned 
doubtful,  and  especially  upon  Henderson,  Fowler,  and 
Ross. 

Even  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis 
copal  Church,  then  in  session  at  Chicago,  was  called  upon 
to  lend  a  hand,  and  a  motion  was  made  on  the  13th  of 
May  for  an  hour  of  prayer  in  aid  of  impeachment.  An 
aged  delegate  moved  to  lay  that  proposal  on  the  table, 
saying: 

My  understanding  is  that  impeachment  is  a  judicial  proceed 
ing  and  that  Senators  are  acting  under  an  oath.  Are  we  to  pray 
to  the  Almighty  that  they  may  violate  their  oaths  ? 

The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  prevailed.  On  the  fol 
lowing  day,  however,  Bishop  Simpson  offered  a  new  pre 
amble  and  resolution,  omitting  any  expression  of  opinion 
that  Senators  ought  to  vote  for  conviction,  but  reciting 
that  "painful  rumors  are  in  circulation  that,  partly  by 
unworthy  jealousies  and  partly  by  corrupt  influences, 
pecuniary  and  otherwise,  most  actively  employed,  efforts 
were  being  made  to  influence  Senators  improperly,  and 
to  prevent  them  from  performing  their  high  duty  " ;  there 
fore,  an  hour  should  be  set  apart  in  the  following  day  for 
prayer  to  beseech  God  "to  save  our  Senators  from  error." 
This  cunningly  drawn  resolution  was  adopted  without 
opposition.  It  was  supposed  to  have  been  aimed  at  Sena 
tor  Willey,  of  West  Virginia,  rather  than  at  the  Throne 
of  Grace. 


318  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Under  the  rules  adopted  for  the  trial  each  Senator  was 
allowed  to  file  a  written  opinion.  That  of  Trumbull  was 
the  first  one  in  the  list.  Among  other  things  he  said : 

To  do  impartial  justice  in  all  things  appertaining  to  the  pre 
sent  trial,  according  to  the  Constitution  and  laws,  is  the  duty 
imposed  on  each  Senator  by  the  position  he  holds  and  the  oath 
he  has  taken,  and  he  who  falters  in  the  discharge  of  that  duty, 
either  from  personal  or  party  considerations,  is  unworthy  his 
position,  and  merits  the  scorn  and  contempt  of  all  just  men. 

The  question  to  be  decided  is  not  whether  Andrew  Johnson  is 
a  proper  person  to  fill  the  presidential  office,  nor  whether  it  is  fit 
that  he  should  remain  in  it,  nor,  indeed,  whether  he  has  vio 
lated  the  Constitution  and  laws  in  other  respects  than  those 
alleged  against  him.  As  well  might  any  other  fifty-four  persons 
take  upon  themselves  by  violence  to  rid  the  country  of  Andrew 
Johnson,  because  they  believed  him  a  bad  man,  as  to  call  upon 
the  fifty-four  Senators,  in  violation  of  their  sworn  duty,  to  con 
vict  and  depose  him  for  any  other  causes  than  those  alleged  in 
the  articles  of  impeachment.  As  well  might  any  citizen  take 
the  law  into  his  own  hands  and  become  its  executioner  as  to  ask 
the  Senate  to  convict,  outside  of  the  case  made.  To  sanction 
such  a  principle  would  be  destructive  of  all  law  and  all  liberty 
worth  the  name,  since  liberty  unregulated  by  law  is  but  another 
name  for  anarchy. 

He  then  took  up  the  articles  of  impeachment  seriatim 
and  showed  that  they  all  hinged  upon  the  removal  of 
Stanton  and  the  ad  interim  appointment  of  Thomas. 

But  even  if  a  different  construction  could  be  put  upon  the 
law  [he  continued],  I  could  never  consent  to  convict  the  Chief 
Magistrate  of  a  high  misdemeanor  and  remove  him  from  office 
for  a  misconstruction  of  what  must  be  admitted  to  be  a  doubt 
ful  statute,  and  particularly  when  the  misconstruction  was  the 
same  put  upon  it  by  the  authors  of  the  law  at  the  time  of  its 
passage. 

As  to  the  charge  that  he  (Trumbull)  had  already 
voted  that  the  President  had  no  authority  to  remove 
Stanton,  he  said: 


IMPEACHMENT  319 

Importance  is  sought  to  be  given  to  the  passage  by  the 
Senate,  before  impeachment  articles  were  found  by  the  House 
of  Representatives,  of  the  following  resolutions:  "Resolved  by 
the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  That  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  the  United  States  the  President  has  no  power  to 
remove  the  Secretary  of  War  and  designate  any  other  officer  to 
perform  the  duties  of  that  office  ad  interim"  as  if  Senators,  sit 
ting  as  a  court  on  the  trial  of  the  President  for  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors,  would  feel  bound  or  influenced  in  any  degree  by  a 
resolution  introduced  and  hastily  passed  before  adjournment 
on  the  very  day  the  orders  to  Stanton  and  Thomas  were  issued. 
Let  him  who  would  be  governed  by  such  considerations  in  pass 
ing  on  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the  accused,  and  not  by  the  law 
and  the  facts  as  they  have  been  developed  in  the  trial,  shelter 
himself  under  such  a  resolution.  I  am  sure  no  honest  man 
could. 

He  concluded  with  these  words: 

Once  set  the  example  of  impeaching  a  President  for  what, 
when  the  excitement  of  the  hour  shall  have  subsided,  will  be 
regarded  as  insufficient  cause,  and  no  future  President  will  be 
safe  who  happens  to  differ  with  a  majority  of  the  House  and 
two  thirds  of  the  Senate  on  any  measure  deemed  by  them 
important,  particularly  if  of  a  political  character.  Blinded  by 
partisan  zeal,  with  such  an  example  before  them  they  will  not 
scruple  to  remove  out  of  the  way  any  obstacle  to  the  accom 
plishment  of  their  purpose,  and  what  then  becomes  of  the 
checks  and  balances  of  the  Constitution  so  carefully  devised 
and  so  vital  to  its  perpetuity?  They  are  all  gone.  In  view  of 
the  consequences  likely  to  flow  from  this  day's  proceedings, 
should  they  result  in  conviction  on  what  my  judgment  tells  me 
are  insufficient  charges  and  proofs,  I  tremble  for  the  future  of 
my  country.  I  cannot  be  an  instrument  to  produce  such  a 
result,  and  at  the  hazard  of  the  ties  even  of  friendship  and  affec 
tion,  till  calmer  times  shall  do  justice  to  my  motives,  no  alter 
native  is  left  me  but  the  inflexible  discharge  of  duty. 

Gideon  Welles,  under  date  May  16,  says: 

Willey ,  after  being  badgered  and  disciplined  to  decide  against 
his  judgment,  at  a  late  hour  last  night  agreed  to  vote  for  the 


320  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

eleventh  article,  which  was  one  reason  for  reversing  the  order 
and  making  it  the  first.  .  .  .  Bishop  Simpson,  a  high  priest  of 
the  Methodists  and  a  sectarian  politician  of  great  shrewdness 
and  ability,  had  brought  his  clerical  and  church  influence  to 
bear  upon  Willey  through  Harlan,  the  Methodist  elder  and  or 
gan  in  the  Senate.1 

So  the  managers  vaulted  over  ten  articles  and  began 
the  roll-call  on  the  last  of  the  series.  The  vote  resulted: 
guilty,  35;  not  guilty,  19.  One  less  than  two  thirds  had 
voted  not  guilty;  so  the  President  was  acquitted  on  an 
article,  the  gravamen  of  which  was  the  President's 
attempt  to  prevent  Stanton  from  returning  to  office  after 
the  Senate  had  non-concurred  in  his  removal.  Sherman, 
Howe,  and  Willey  had  voted  guilty  on  this  article,  but 
Henderson,  Fowler,  Ross,  and  Van  Winkle  had  voted  not 
guilty. 

The  impeachers  were  stunned,  and  before  they  could 
collect  their  thoughts,  the  Chief  Justice,  in  pursuance  of 
a  rule  previously  adopted,  directed  that  the  vote  should 
now  be  taken  on  the  first  article.  He  was  interrupted  by 
a  motion  to  adjourn,  which  he  ruled  out  of  order.  An 
appeal  from  the  decision  was  taken  and  sustained  by  a 
majority  vote,  and  the  Senate  sitting  as  a  court  of  im 
peachment  adjourned  for  ten  days.  The  utmost  efforts 
and  direst  threats  were  brought  to  bear  upon  Senator 
Ross  because  he  was  believed  to  be  weak  and  defenseless, 
but  he  remained  firm.  When  the  court  reassembled  on  the 
26th  of  May,  the  first  article  of  impeachment,  the  one 
which  charged  the  President  with  the  high  misdemeanor 
of  removing  Stanton  from  office,  was  jettisoned  alto 
gether,  and  votes  were  taken  on  the  second  and  third 
articles,  relating  to  the  appointment  of  Thomas  as  Secre 
tary  ad  interim.  On  both  of  these  articles  the  result  was 

1  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  in,  358. 


IMPEACHMENT  321 

identical  in  number  and  personnel  with  that  on  the  elev 
enth  article.  Impeachment  had  failed.  The  court  then 
adjourned  sine  die. 

The  opposition  to  impeachment  had  some  latent 
strength  that  was  never  officially  disclosed.  Sprague,  of 
Rhode  Island,  and  Willey,  of  West  Virginia,  attended  the 
meetings  of  the  Republican  anti-impeachers  and  said 
they  would  vote  not  guilty  if  their  votes  should  be 
needed.1  The  President  was  assured  that  Morgan  would 
do  the  same.2 

On  the  same  day,  Edwin  M.  Stanton  wrote  a  note  to 
the  President  saying  that  inasmuch  as  impeachment  had 
failed  he  had  relinquished  the  War  Department  and  had 
left  the  contents  thereof  in  charge  of  the  senior  Assistant 
Adjutant-General.  He  then  retired  to  his  own  home 
broken  in  health  by  hard  labor  and  clouded  in  reputation 
by  his  retention  of  a  place  in  the  Cabinet  in  defiance  of 
his  chief.  Not  even  success  in  maintaining  his  position 
could  excuse  such  an  act.  Failure  made  it  a  glaring  mis 
demeanor.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  shift  the  respon 
sibility  for  his  action  to  the  shoulders  of  Sumner  and  his 
other  backers  in  the  Senate,  who  advised  him  to  "stick." 
Undoubtedly  they  did  so  advise,  and  undoubtedly  they 
believed,  and  persuaded  him  to  believe,  that  it  was  a 
patriotic  duty  to  commit  a  glaring  breach  of  good  man 
ners  and  to  persist  in  it  for  months;  but  the  responsibil 
ity  for  such  an  act  could  not  be  assumed  by  other  persons. 
Moreover,  if  it  was  a  breach  of  the  Constitution  for  the 
Senate  to  forbid  the  President  to  choose  his  own  cabinet, 
as  Stanton  himself  had  affirmed,  it  was  a  breach  of  the 
Constitution  for  him  to  cooperate  with  the  Senate  in 
doing  so. 

1  This  fact  is  mentioned  in  Dunning's  Reconstruction,  p.  107,  on  the  authority 
of  ex-senator  Henderson.  The  latter  verbally  made  the  same  statement  to  me. 

2  Century  Magazine,  January,  1913. 


LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

The  glory  of  the  trial  [says  Mr.  Rhodes] 1  was  the  action  of 
the  seven  recusant  Senators.  .  .  .  The  average  Senator  who 
hesitated  finally  gave  his  voice  with  the  majority,  but  these 
seven,  in  conscientiousness  and  delicacy  of  moral  fibre,  were 
above  any  average,  and  in  refusing  to  sacrifice  their  ideas  of 
justice  to  a  popular  demand,  which  in  this  case  was  neither 
insincere  nor  unenlightened,  they  showed  a  degree  of  courage 
than  which  we  know  none  higher.  Hard  as  was  their  immediate 
future  they  have  received  their  meed  from  posterity,  their 
monument  in  the  admiring  tribute  of  all  who  know  how  firm 
they  stood  in  an  hour  of  supreme  trial. 

In  this  comment  there  is  now  general  concurrence. 
Even  Ross  has  been  immortalized  by  his  resolute  adher 
ence  to  what  he  believed  to  be  right.  His  trial  was  the 
hardest  of  all,  because  on  the  one  hand  he  had  no  accu 
mulated  reputation  to  fall  back  upon,  and  on  the  other 
hand  he  had  the  most  radical  state  in  the  Union  to  deal 
with.  Moreover,  he  was  desperately  poor,  his  only  prop 
erty  being  a  starving  country  newspaper.  Ill-luck  fol 
lowed  him  after  his  term  expired.  A  cyclone  struck  the 
town  of  Coffeyville,  Kansas,  and  scattered  the  contents 
of  his  newspaper  office  over  the  adjacent  prairie.  Among 
the  Trumbull  papers  is  an  appeal  from  the  local  relief 
committee  for  help  to  start  Ross's  newspaper  again,  and 
a  donation  from  Trumbull  of  two  hundred  dollars  for 
this  purpose.  Some  forty  years  later,  Ross  died  in  New 
Mexico,  old  and  poor.  He  had  been  a  soldier  in  the 
Civil  War.  Congress  by  a  special  act  voted  him  a  pen 
sion,  before  his  death.  This  was  a  solace  on  the  brink  of 
the  grave  and  a  tribute  to  his  fidelity  to  principle  in  a 
trying  hour.  It  was  recognized  as  such  and  applauded  by 
the  press  of  the  country  without  a  discordant  note.  In 
the  award  of  credit  for  adherence  to  convictions  of  duty 
in  the  trial  of  Andrew  Johnson,  three  other  Senators 

1  History  of  the  United  States,  vi,  156. 


IMPEACHMENT  323 

have  been  for  the  most  part  overlooked,  namely,  James 
Dixon,  of  Connecticut,  James  R.  Doolittle,  of  Wisconsin, 
and  Daniel  S.  Norton,  of  Minnesota.  All  of  these  were 
elected  as  Republicans  and  all  of  them  walked  in  the  fiery 
furnace  along  with  the  Seven,  or  rather  preceded  them 
thither.  The  reason  why  they  have  been  neglected  by 
the  muse  of  history  is  that  they  started  two  years  earlier. 
They  went  to  the  Philadelphia  Arm-in-Arm  Convention 
and  thus  became  classified  as  Democrats.  Edgar  Cowan, 
of  Pennsylvania,  did  likewise.  His  term  expired,  how 
ever,  before  impeachment  reached  the  acute  stage.  Dixon 
and  Doolittle  had  served  through  Lincoln's  entire  term. 
They  approved  of  his  Reconstruction  policy  and  simply 
adhered  to  it  after  Johnson  came  in.  Thej^_receiyed  a 
largershare  of  contumely^as  turn-coats  and  outcasts 
than  the~SevenTbecause  they  began  to  earn  that  distinc 
tion  earlier:  Doolittle  accepted  political  martyrdom 
without  a  murmur.  The  legislature  of  Wisconsin  passed 
resolutions  denouncing  his  support  of  President  Johnson 
and  his  policy  and  demanded  his  resignation  as  a  Senator, 
and  these  resolutions  were  presented  to  the  Senate  by  his 
colleague,  Timothy  O.  Howe,  and  were  answered  by  Doo 
little  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  in  a  manly  way.  If  there 
are  laurels  to  be  distributed  at  this  late  day,  he  and  his 
three  allies  are  entitled  to  "a  far  more  exceeding  and 
eternal  weight  of  glory." 

Trumbull  received  his  quota  of  abuse  and  vilification 
for  his  vote  against  impeachment  from  small-minded 
newspapers  and  local  politicians.  To  these  it  seemed  an 
infernal  shame  that  he  had  still  five  years  to  serve  in  the 
Senate  before  they  could  turn  him  out.  The  only  reply  he 
ever  made  in  writing,  so  far  as  I  know,  was  in  a  letter 
dated  May  20  to  Gustave  Koerner,  which  the  latter 
caused  to  be  published  in  the  Belleville  Advocate,  reiterat- 


324  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

ing  in  brief  the  views  expressed  in  his  opinion  as  a  mem 
ber  of  the  court. 

Fessenden's  unexpired  term  was  shorter  than  Trum- 
bull's.  He  was  read  out  of  the  party  rather  prematurely. 
In  the  autumn  following  his  vote  on  impeachment, 
George  H.  Pendleton,  of  Ohio,  made  his  appearance  as 
a  stump  speaker  in  Maine  supporting  the  Democratic 
policy  of  "paying  the  bonds  in  greenbacks."  This  was  a 
new  issue  in  the  East,  and  a  rather  puzzling  one  every 
where.  Pendleton  had  been  a  candidate  for  the  presi 
dency  in  the  national  convention  on  that  platform,  but 
had  fallen  somewhat  short  of  a  nomination.  Fessenden 
was  the  only  man  within  reach  able  to  meet  him  and 
expose  his  fallacies  on  the  stump.  The  party  was  in  dan 
ger  of  losing  the  state.  It  was  obliged  to  call  for  the  Sena 
tor's  help.  He  responded  favorably,  took  the  field  and 
routed  the  Greenbackers  completely.  This  was  his  last 
victory.  He  had  been  in  poor  health  for  some  years. 
Overwork  and  over-anxiety  as  chairman  of  the  Finance 
Committee  during  the  War,  and  later  as  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  had  told  upon  a  feeble  frame.  He  died  Sep 
tember  2,  1869,  and  with  him  passed  away  the  most 
clairvoyant  mind,  joined  to  the  most  sterling  character, 
that  the  state  of  Maine  ever  contributed  to  the  national 
councils.  Whether,  if  his  life  and  health  had  been  spared, 
he  could  have  been  reflected  to  the  Senate,  is  doubtful. 
Gideon  Welles  was  informed  that  he  had  not  a  friend  in 
the  Maine  legislature.  When  his  death  was  announced 
in  the  Senate,  Trumbull  said  of  him : 

As  a  debater  engaged  in  the  current  business  of  legislation 
the  Senate  has  not  had  his  equal  in  my  time.  No  man  could 
detect  a  sophistry  or  perceive  a  scheme  or  a  job  quicker  than  he, 
and  none  possessed  the  power  to  expose  it  more  effectually.  He 
was  a  practical,  matter-of-fact  man  utterly  abhorring  all  show, 
pretension,  and  humbug.  .  .  . 


IMPEACHMENT  325 

But  I  did  not  rise  so  much  to  speak  of  the  great  abilities  and 
noble  traits  of  character  which  have  made  Mr.  Fessenden's 
death  to  be  felt  as  a  national  calamity,  as  of  the  personal  loss 
which  I  myself  feel  at  his  departure.  Only  three  others  are  now 
left  who  were  here  when  I  came  to  the  Senate,  and  there  is  but 
one  who  came  with  me.  There  has  been  no  one  here  since  I 
came  to  whom  I  oftener  went  for  counsel  and  whose  opinions 
I  have  been  accustomed  more  to  respect  than  those  of  our 
departed  friend.  There  were  occasions  during  our  fourteen 
years  of  service  together  when  we  differed  about  minor  matters 
and  had  controversies,  for  the  time  unpleasant,  but  I  never  lost 
my  respect  for  him,  nor  do  I  believe  that  he  ever  did  for  me. 
He  was  my  friend  more  closely,  perhaps,  the  last  year  or  two 
than  ever  before.  Like  other  Senators  I  shall  miss  him  in  the 
daily  transactions  of  this  chamber,  and  perhaps  more  than  any 
other  shall  miss  him  as  the  one  person  from  whom  I  most  fre 
quently  sought  advice.  I  am  not  one  of  those,  however,  who 
believe  that  constitutional  liberty,  our  free  institutions,  or  the 
progress  of  the  age  depend  upon  any  one  individual.  When  the 
great  and  good  Lincoln  was  stricken  down,  I  did  not  believe 
that  the  Government  would  fail,  or  liberty  perish.  Though  his 
loss  may  have  subjected  the  country  to  many  trials  it  would 
not  otherwise  have  had,  still  our  Government  stands  and  liberty 
survives.  Another  has  taken  Mr.  Fessenden's  place;  others  wTill 
soon  occupy  ours,  to  discharge  their  duties  better,  perhaps, 
than  we  have  done,  and  he  among  us  to-day  will  be  fortunate, 
indeed,  if,  when  his  work  on  earth  is  done,  he  shall  leave  behind 
him  a  life  so  pure  and  useful,  a  reputation  so  unsullied,  a  patriot 
ism  so  ardent,  and  a  statesmanship  so  conspicuous  as  William 
Pitt  Fessenden.1 

Grimes  had  a  stroke  of  paralysis  while  the  impeach 
ment  trial  was  in  progress,  and  it  was  feared  that  he 
could  not  be  in  his  seat  when  the  time  for  voting  came, 
but  he  rallied  sufficiently  to  be  carried  into  the  Senate 
Chamber  and  to  rise  upon  his  feet  when  his  name  was 
called.  When  he  learned  the  nature  of  his  malady  he 
announced  that  he  would  not  be  a  candidate  for  reelec- 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1869,  p.  113. 


326  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

tion.  Thus  he  was  taken  out  of  the  reach  of  party  ven 
geance,  but  though  as  pure  as  ice,  he  did  not  escape  cal 
umny. 

John  B.  Henderson  died  while  this  book  was  passing 
through  the  press.  He  was  the  only  one  of  the  Seven 
Traitors  whom  the  Republican  party  publicly  and  for 
mally  forgave.  He  lost  his  seat  in  the  Senate  as  he 
expected,  and  he  retired  to  private  life  as  a  lawyer  in  the 
city  of  St.  Louis.  Twelve  years  passed.  Two  presidential 
lustrums  of  Grant  and  one  of  Hayes  had  erased  from  the 
hearts  of  men  the  burning  sensations  of  impeachment. 
In  1884,  a  convention  assembled  in  Chicago  to  nominate 
a  candidate  of  the  Republican  party  for  the  presidency. 
I  happened  to  be  there.  On  the  second  day  of  its  sitting, 
the  Committee  on  Permanent  Organization  reported  the 
name  of  John  B.  Henderson,  of  Missouri,  for  permanent 
chairman.  The  assembled  multitude  knew  at  once  the 
significance  of  the  nomination  and  gave  cheer  after  cheer 
of  applause  and  approval.  It  was  the  signal  that  all  was 
forgiven  on  both  sides.  Which  side  most  needed  forgive 
ness  was  not  asked. 

In  August,  1868,  all  the  sorrows  of  Trumbull's  public 
life  were  submerged  and  belittled  by  a  domestic  affliction. 
His  wife,  Julia  Jayne  Trumbull,  died  on  the  16th  of  that 
month,  at  her  home  in  Washington  City,  in  the  forty- 
fifth  year  of  her  age,  and  was  buried  in  the  cemetery  of 
her  native  place,  Springfield,  Illinois.  She  was  the  mo 
ther  of  six  children,  all  boys,  three  of  whom  were  living  at 
the  time  of  her  death. 


CHAPTER  XXI 

THE   McCARDLE  CASE  —  GRANT'S  CABINET  —  THE 
FIFTEENTH   AMENDMENT 

IN  November,  1867,  General  Ord,  commanding  the 
military  district  of  Mississippi,  arrested  and  imprisoned 
an  editor  named  W.  H.  McCardle,  for  alleged  libelous  and 
incendiary  publications.  McCardle  applied  to  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  under  the 
same  act  of  Congress  which  Milligan  had  successfully 
invoked.  The  writ  was  granted,  a  hearing  was  had,  and 
the  prisoner  was  remanded  to  the  custody  of  the  military 
authorities.  McCardle  took  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Court.  The  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States,  Mr. 
Henry  Stanbery,  decided  not  to  appear  in  the  case.  Gen 
eral  Grant  was  at  this  time  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim, 
and  Stanbery  notified  him  of  the  pending  case  and  sug 
gested  to  him  the  propriety  of  employ  ing  counsel  to  repre 
sent  the  military  authorities  having  McCardle  in  custody. 
As  this  was  a  case  involving  the  validity  of  the  Recon 
struction  laws  of  Congress,  General  Grant  took  steps  to 
defend,  and  addressed  a  letter  to  Senator  Trumbull, 
dated  January  8, 1868,  saying:  "This  Department  desires 
to  engage  your  professional  services,  for  that  object." 
Trumbull  replied  on  the  llth,  accepting  the  employment, 
and  saying  that  he  should  desire  to  have  other  counsel 
associated  with  him.  A  few  days  later  he  secured  the 
assistance  of  Matt.  H.  Carpenter,  of  Wisconsin.  A  brief 
was  prepared,  and  both  Trumbull  and  Carpenter  made 
oral  arguments.  McCardle  was  represented  by  Jeremiah 
S.  Black. 


328  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

TrumbuH's  argument  was  made  on  the  4th  of  March. 
He  contended  that  the  court  had  no  jurisdiction,  and 
that,  therefore,  the  appeal  should  be  dismissed.  The  leg 
islation  of  Congress  on  the  subject  was  as  follows:  The 
Act  of  1789,  establishing  the  judiciary,  did  not  give  the 
right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  in  habeas  corpus 
cases.  It  was  omitted  in  order  to  avoid  lumbering  the 
docket  of  the  highest  tribunal  with  petty  details.  On  the 
5th  of  February,  1867,  Congress  passed  an  act  granting 
the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  in  such  cases,  in 
order  to  protect  negroes  and  white  Unionists  in  the  South. 
The  last  clause  of  the  act  was  in  these  words : 

This  act  shall  not  apply  to  the  case  of  any  person  who  is  or 
may  be  held  in  the  custody  of  the  military  authorities  of  the 
United  States  charged  with  any  military  offense,  or  with  hav 
ing  aided  or  abetted  rebellion  against  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  prior  to  the  passage  of  this  act. 

It  was  TrumbulPs  contention  that  McCardle  fell 
within  this  exception,  and  hence  that  the  right  of  appeal, 
so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  did  not  exist. 

Congress  was  in  trepidation  as  to  the  outcome  of  the 
case  and  was  resolved  to  take  no  chances  on  it.  Various 
legislative  remedies  were  proposed.  One  was  to  require  a 
unanimous  vote  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  pronounce  any 
act  of  Congress  unconstitutional  and  void.  A  bill  requir 
ing  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  court  in  such  cases  actually 
passed  the  House  on  the  13th  of  January  by  yeas  116, 
nays  39,  but  it  was  never  considered  by  the  Senate.  The 
end  was  accomplished,  however,  in  a  different  way.  The 
Senate  had  passed  a  bill  of  only  one  section,  reported  by 
Williams,  of  Oregon,  from  the  Committee  on  Finance,  to 
amend  the  code  of  judicial  procedure  in  revenue  cases. 
The  House  attached  to  this  bill  another  section  repealing 
so  much  of  the  Act  of  February  5,  1867,  as  authorized  an 


THE  McCARDLE  CASE  329 

appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  class  of  cases  therein 
named,  and  withdrawing  from  the  Supreme  Court  juris 
diction  as  to  appeals  already  taken.  This  bill  passed  the 
House  March  13,  1868,  without  a  division.  It  was  taken 
up  in  the  Senate  on  the  motion  of  Senator  Williams  and 
passed  by  a  vote  of  32  to  6  the  same  day,  although  Sena 
tors  Buckalew  and  Hendricks  asked  for  an  explanation 
of  its  meaning,  which  was  not  given  to  them. 

Although  Buckalew  and  Hendricks  did  not  have  time 
to  find  out  the  nature  of  this  bill,  Andrew  Johnson  did. 
In  due  time  he  returned  it  to  the  Senate  with  a  veto  mes 
sage,  exposing  it  as  a  measure  to  deprive  citizens  of  their 
rights  under  existing  law  and  to  arrest  proceedings  al 
ready  in  course  of  judicial  determination.  On  this  veto 
there  was  a  debate  in  the  Senate  beginning  on  March  25, 
1868,  in  which  the  Democrats,  led  by  Hendricks,  had 
decidedly  the  best  of  it.  The  supporters  of  the  bill  had 
very  little  to  say  for  themselves.  Trumbull  contended 
that  the  bill  did  not  affect  any  case  then  pending  in  the 
court,  but  in  this  debate  he  was  worsted  by  Doolittle, 
who  showed  that  it  applied  to  the  McCardle  case.  Trum 
bull  and  Carpenter  had  argued  that  the  Supreme  Court 
had  no  jurisdiction,  since  military  cases  were  not  appeal 
able  under  the  Act  of  February  5,  1867.  The  court  had 
ruled  against  them  because  McCardle  was  arrested,  not 
for  a  military,  but  for  a  civil  offense.  It  still  remained  to 
be  determined  whether  the  court  below  had  jurisdiction. 
Trumbull  was  confident  that  the  Supreme  Court  would 
hold  that  the  lower  court  had  no  such  jurisdiction,  in 
which  case  the  appeal  would  fail  and  the  bill  vetoed  by 
the  President  would  be  nugatory  as  to  McCardle.  Doo 
little  in  reply  showed  that  the  bill  did  cut  off  McCardle's 
rights  as  an  appellant,  and  the  Supreme  Court  so  held  in 
the  month  of  December  following,  when  it  dismissed  the 


330  LYMAN   TRUMBULL 

petition  expressly  on  the  ground  that  its  jurisdiction  had 
been  withdrawn  by  the  Act  of  March  27,  1868.  The  bill 
was  passed  over  the  veto  on  that  date,  by  33  to  9  in  the 
Senate  and  by  115  to  34  in  the  House.  It  was  partisan 
legislation.  The  Republicans  drew  a  long  breath  after  its 
passage  because  they  had  apprehended  another  Milli- 
gan  decision,  undermining,  perhaps,  the  whole  fabric  of 
Congressional  Reconstruction.  Had  not  the  court  been 
deterred  by  the  critical  condition  of  public  affairs,  it  might 
with  perfect  propriety  have  retained  its  jurisdiction  and 
decided  in  favor  of  McCardle,  since  the  Act  of  March  27 
was  glaringly  unjust  as  to  him.  But  the  judges  were 
intimidated  by  the  awful  pother  o'er  their  heads  and 
were  glad  of  an  excuse  to  drop  McCardle. 

It  was  not  so  easy  to  drop  Trumbull,  however.  He  was 
both  Senator  and  retained  counsel  in  this  case.  Therefore 
he  ought  not  to  have  used  the  former  position  to  help  his 
own  side  in  the  litigation.  The  bill  did  not  originate  with 
him,  or  his  committee,  but  he  voted  for  it  twice,  although 
his  vote  was  not  needed.  There  was  a  two-thirds  majority 
without  him.  True,  he  maintained  that  the  bill  did  not 
apply  to  McCardle,  but  most  of  the  Senators  who  took 
part  in  the  debate  held  that  it  did.  In  a  case  of  doubt 
involving  the  rights  of  a  litigant,  he  ought  to  have  re 
frained  from  voting. 

Eventually  he  received  $10,000  as  compensation  for 
legal  services  in  this  and  one  other  case  in  which  he  had 
been  retained  by  the  War  Department.  The  amount  was 
fixed  by  Stanton,  and  was  paid  in  part  by  him  and  in  part 
by  Secretary  Rawlins  after  Grant  became  President. 
Somewhat  later  this  payment  became  a  subject  of  criti 
cism  inhostile^newspapers ;  and  inasmuch  as  the  McCar- 
(lecaseliad  been  triecTchlring  Johnson's  Administration, 
it  was  hastily  assumed  that  it  had  had  some  shady  connec- 


THE  McCARDLE  CASE  331 

tion  with  Trumbull's  vote  of  not  guilty  in  the  impeach 
ment  case.  When  it  became  evident  that  the  opponents 
of  Johnson  were  the  ones  who  had  employed  him  and 
fixed  the  amount  to  be  paid,  the  accusers  said  that  his 
action  was  contrary  to  law  and  that  he  ought  not  to  have 
taken  any  pay  at  all  for  legal  services  to  the  Government 
while  he  was  a  Senator.  This  charge  was  made  by  Chand 
ler,  of  Michigan,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  and  it  led  to 
a  sharp  debate,  in  which  Chandler  was  called  to  order  by 
the  Vice-President  for  using  unparliamentary  language. 

There  was  a  law,  enacted  in  1808,  prohibiting  execu 
tive  officers  of  the  Government  from  making  contracts 
with  members  of  Congress,  and  prohibiting  the  latter 
from  receiving  payment  therefor.  This  law  did  not  apply 
in  terms  to  legal  services,  and  the  presumption  was  that 
it  did  not  apply  to  them  in  spirit,  since  there  were  pre 
cedents  for  such  employment  of  members  of  Congress  as 
late  as  1864,  when  Roscoe  Conkling,  then  a  member  of 
the  House  from  New  York,  had  been  employed  by  the 
War  Department  and  had  been  paid  for  the  service  ren 
dered. 

Chandler,  in  the  debate,  quoted  an  opinion  of  Attorney- 
General  Wirt,  given  in  1828,  to  the  effect  that  although 
the  circumstances  attending  the  passage  of  the  Act  of 
1808  showed  that  Congress  was  then  legislating  on  con 
tracts  for  carrying  the  mails  and  for  the  purchase  of  sup 
plies  and  not  for  legal  services,  yet,  in  his  belief,  the  law 
was  broad  enough  to  include  such  services.  An  opinion 
of  an  Attorney-General,  however,  was  not  binding  on 
Senators. 

Trumbull  replied  that  the  law  had  been  settled  differ 
ently  as  to  legal  services,  and  that  the  only  prohibition 
then  in  force  was  against  Congressmen  practicing  for  com 
pensation  in  the  Court  of  Claims  or  before  the  executive 


332  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

departments.  In  this  contention  he  could  hardly  fail  to 
be  correct,  since  all  such  laws  later  than  1861  had  eman 
ated  from,  or  had  passed  through,  the  committee  of  which 
he  was  chairman.  The  governing  statute  was  the  act  of 
June  11,  1864,  introduced  by  Senator  Wade,  in  1863. 
As  originally  drawn,  it  prohibited  Congressmen  from 
practicing  for  or  against  the  Government  before  any 
court,  or  department ;  but  the  word  "court"  was  stricken 
out  while  it  was  pending  in  the  Senate,  and  this  was 
good  evidence  to  show  what  the  intention  of  Congress 
was. 

""Although  the  payment  was  certainly  legal,  it  would 
have  been  better  for  Trumbull  if  he  had  not  taken  it. 
Whenever  he  came  before  the  people  for  public  prefer 
ment  thereafter,  the  Chandler  accusation  was  brought 
against  him  afresh  and  it  required  a  new  refutation. 
^-^ 

After  the  impeachment  fiasco  was  ended,  the  nomina 
tion  of  Grant  for  President  by  the  Republican  party  was 
inevitable  —  not  because  he  was  a  Republican,  but  be 
cause  he  was  the  only  man  whom  the  party  could  cer 
tainly  elect.  Until  he  quarreled  with  Andrew  Johnson, 
nobody  knew  which  side  he  favored.  Indeed,  the  Demo 
crats,  until  that  time,  had  looked  hopefully  to  him  as  a 
possible  candidate  for  themselves. 

The  convention  which  nominated  him  was  confronted 
by  the  fact  that  Congress  had  imposed  negro  suffrage  on 
the  South,  while  some  of  the  largest  Northern  States  had 
not  yet  adopted  it,  but  had  flatly  refused  to  do  so.  The 
platform  committee,  therefore,  reported,  and  the  conven 
tion  adopted,  a  resolution  declaring: 

The  guaranty  by  Congress  of  equal  suffrage  to  all  loyal  men 
at  the  South  was  demanded  by  every  consideration  of  public 
safety,  of  gratitude,  and  of  justice,  and  must  be  maintained, 


GRANT'S  CABINET  333 

but  the  question  of  suffrage  in  all  the  loyal  states  properly 
belongs  to  the  people  of  those  states. 

Grant  was  nominated  unanimously  May  20,  1868,  and 
Schuyler  Coif  ax  was  nominated  as  Vice-President.  The 
Democrats  nominated  Horatio  Seymour  for  President 
and  Frank  P.  Blair  for  Vice-president.  In  the  election, 
Grant  and  Coif  ax  received  214  electoral  votes  and  Sey 
mour  and  Blair  80. 

Grant's  first  Cabinet  was  a  conglomerate  which  stupe 
fied  the  politicians.  For  Secretary  of  State  he  named 
Elihu  B.  Washburne,  of  Illinois.  Washburne  had  repre 
sented  the  Galena  District  in  Congress  continuously  and 
creditably  for  twelve  years,  and  was  just  entering  upon  a 
new  term.  He  was  a  fellow  townsman  of  Grant  when  the 
war  broke  out  and  had  recommended  him  to  Governor 
Yates  as  a  military  helper,  and  from  that  time  onward 
had  been  his  stanch  and  unwavering  supporter.  When 
Grant  fell  into  disfavor  after  the  battle  of  Shiloh,  and 
almost  everybody  in  Washington  was  clamoring  against 
him,  Washburne  fairly  roared  on  the  other  side,  and  con 
tended  not  only  that  he  ought  to  be  retained  in  his  place, 
but  that  he  ought  to  be  promoted  to  Halleck's  place  in 
command  of  all  the  Western  armies  —  and  here  he  was 
right.  His  personal  relations  with  the  General  had  been 
so  close  and  his  services  so  conspicuous  that  there  was 
a  general  expectation  that  he  would  have  a  place  in 
the  Cabinet;  but  nobody  supposed  that  it  would  be  the 
Department  of  State,  for  which  he  was  wholly  unfitted. 
Although  a  man  of  ability,  tenacity,  and  long  experience 
in  public  affairs,  he  was  impulsive,  headstrong,  comba 
tive,  and  unbalanced.  The  Department  of  State  was 
regarded  then  as  the  premier  position,  where  equipoise 
was  the  chief  requisite,  and  this  quality  Washburne 
lacked. 


334  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Grant  had  chosen  James  F.  Wilson,  of  Iowa,  as  Secre 
tary  of  State  and  Wilson  had  accepted  the  appointment. 
He  had  been  a  leading  member  of  the  House  and  chair 
man  of  its  Judiciary  Committee,  and  had  been  consulted 
by  Grant  on  the  most  important  matters  connected  with 
his  duties  as  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  including 
his  correspondence  with  Andrew  Johnson  after  he  had 
resigned  that  office.  Wilson  had  declined  a  reelection  to 
Congress  because  he  wished  to  retire  from  public  life, 
and  he  accepted  the  appointment  offered  by  Grant  with 
reluctance  and  only  at  the  urgent  solicitation  of  the  latter. 

Washburne  had  been  promised  the  office  of  Minister 
to  France.  When  he  knew  that  Wilson  was  to  be  ap 
pointed  Secretary  of  State,  he  went  to  Grant  and  asked 
that  the  appointment  of  Secretary  might  be  conferred 
upon  himself  temporarily  so  as  to  give  him  prestige  in  his 
office  as  Minister.  Grant  saw  no  objection  to  this,  but 
he  asked  Wilson's  permission  first.  Wilson  did  not  relish 
the  proposition,  but  he  consented,  on  condition  that 
Washburne  should  not  take  any  action  as  Secretary, 
either  in  the  way  of  appointments  to  office  or  the  an 
nouncement  of  policies.  As  soon  as  Washburne  had  been 
confirmed  by  the  Senate,  he  began  to  make  appointments 
and  announce  policies,  and  Grant  did  not  immediately 
call  him  to  order.  Wilson  accordingly  notified  Grant  that 
as  the  conditions  had  been  broken  he  would  not  now 
accept  the  office.  Grant  then  compelled  Washburne  to 
resign.  But  meanwhile  Wilson  had  gone  to  New  York  en 
route  to  his  home  in  Iowa,  and  a  messenger  (A.  D.  Rich 
ardson)  was  sent  after  him  by  Grant  to  urge  him  to  change 
his  mind;  he  declined  to  do  so,  in  terms,  however,  which 
preserved  their  friendship  unimpaired.1 

1  Mr.  Wilson  communicated  these  facts  to  me  at  the  time  of  their  occurrence, 
and  the  correctness  of  this  narrative  has  been  confirmed  by  Major-General 
Grenville  M.  Dodge,  who  was  then  in  close  communication  with  both  parties. 


GRANT'S  CABINET  335 

"Who  ever  heard  before  of  a  man  nominated  Secre 
tary  of  State  merely  as  a  compliment?"  was  Fessenden's 
comment  on  the  Washburne  episode. 

Wilson  afterward  served  a  term  in  the  United  States 
Senate.  He  was  a  good  lawyer,  a  man  of  sound  judgment, 
of  probity  and  stability  of  character,  and  would  have 
filled  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State  creditably  if  not 
brilliantly.  When  Grant  found  that  Wilson's  purpose  to 
withdraw  could  not  be  changed  he  offered  the  place  to 
Hamilton  Fish,  who  accepted  it. 

Grant's  mishaps  in  filling  the  Treasury  Department 
were  quite  as  droll  as  the  foregoing.  He  first  sent  in  the 
name  of  Alexander  T.  Stewart,  the  great  dry-goods  mer 
chant  of  New  York,  as  Secretary.  Stewart  was  a  Scotch- 
Irishman  who  had  migrated  as  a  young  man,  and  had 
taken  up  the  vocation  of  a  school-teacher  in  his  adopted 
country.  Of  his  start  in  life  he  was  very  proud.  He  kept 
a  well-thumbed  copy  of  the  New  Testament  in  Greek  on 
the  centre  table  of  his  hospitable  mansion,  which  he  was 
fond  of  exhibiting  to  his  guests  as  one  of  the  tools  of  trade 
with  which  he  began  his  career  in  America.  Pedagogy, 
however,  did  not  detain  him  long.  He  had  brought  some 
capital  from  the  old  country  and  he  turned  his  attention 
to  silks  and  muslins,  and  by  diligence,  skill,  and  integrity 
had  reached  the  foremost  place  in  the  nation  as  a  mer 
chant,  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War.  His  whole 
sale  business  was  chiefly  with  the  South,  and  this  part  of 
it  was  suddenly  obliterated  in  1861.  Yet  he  recovered  his 
leadership  in  dry  goods  before  the  war  ended,  and  was 
then  rated  as  third  in  the  list  of  rich  men  in  the  United 
states,  the  names  of  Astor  and  Vanderbilt  only  being 
placed  higher. 

Nobody  knew,  at  the  time  when  he  was  named  for  a 
place  in  the  Cabinet,  what  political  party  he  belonged  to 


336  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

or  favored.  His  most  intimate  friend  and  counselor  was 
Henry  Hilton,  a  Democratic  ex-judge,  potent  in  Tammany 
Hall.  That  fact,  however,  implied  no  political  bias  on  the 
part  of  Stewart.  Hilton  was  his  watch-dog  at  the  place 
where  the  local  taxing  and  blackmailing  power  lay.  Nor 
did  Grant  have  any  political  aims  or  thought  in  selecting 
Stewart  for  the  portfolio  of  the  Treasury.  He  chose  him 
because  great  wealth  appealed  strongly  to  the  imagina 
tion  of  one  who  had  had  severe  struggles  with  poverty, 
and  because  he  reasoned  that  a  man  who  had  been  very 
successful  in  his  private  business  would  necessarily  know 
how  to  manage  the  public  business.  Both  Sumner  and 
Gideon  Welles  said  that, Stewart  had  made  a  gift  of  con 
siderable  amount  to  Grant. 

The  nomination  of  Stewart  was  scoffed  at  by  nearly 
everybody  in  Washington,  but  it  was  well  received  by  the 
press  and  no  Senator  dared  to  vote  against  it.  It  was 
presently  discovered,  however,  that  he  could  not  legally 
hold  the  office,  as  he  was  disqualified  by  a  law  of  1789, 
which  provided  that  nobody  engaged  in  trade  or  com 
merce,  nor  any  owner  of  a  seagoing  vessel,  nor  any  dealer 
in  public  lands  or  in  public  securities,  should  be  eligible. 
Stewart  had  not  been  a  candidate  for  the  position,  or  for 
any  position,  but  when  it  was  offered  to  him,  he  thought 
he  would  like  to  have  it,  and  to  this  end  he  proposed  to 
retire  temporarily  from  trade  and  commerce,  and  put  his 
business  in  the  hands  of  trustees  for  charitable  use,  in 
order  to  meet  the  requirements  of  law.  The  President 
also  requested  Congress  to  change  the  law  so  that  he 
might  be  qualified.  Congress,  however,  did  not  think  it 
desirable  to  trim  the  law  to  fit  a  particular  case,  and 
Stewart  did  not  raise  his  bid.  After  a  week's  delay 
the  President  sent  in  the  name  of  George  S.  Boutwell, 
of  Massachusetts,  for  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and 


GRANT'S  CABINET  337 

he  entered  upon  the  duties  of  the  office  with  general 
satisfaction. 

When  the  name  of  Adolph  Borie  was  announced  for 
Secretary  of  the  Navy,  everybody  began  to  ask,  Who  is 
Borie?  Even  Admiral  Farragut  had  never  heard  of  him. 
The  answer  came  that  he  was  a  rich  man  in  Philadelphia 
who  had  entertained  General  Grant  handsomely  on  some 
occasion  when  he  was  temporarily  in  that  city.  Sumner 
said  in  his  speech  of  May  31, 1872,  that  he  also  had  made 
a  gift  to  Grant.  He  retained  the  position  of  Secretary 
only  three  months.  He  then  resigned  and  recommended 
George  M.  Robeson,  a  lawyer  of  New  Jersey,  as  his  suc 
cessor,  and  the  latter  was  appointed.  Robeson  was  as 
little  known  as  Borie  had  been  before  he  was  appointed, 
but  he  was  not  the  same  kind  of  nonentity. 

John  A.  J.  Cresswell,  of  Maryland,  who  became  Post 
master-General,  had  been  a  member  of  Congress.  If 
there  was  not  much  to  be  said  for  him,  there  was  nothing 
at  all  to  be  said  against  him. 

John  A.  Rawlins,  Grant's  chief -of -staff  during  the  war, 
a  man  of  high  character  and  ability,  chose  himself  for 
Secretary  of  War,  and  communicated  his  preference  to 
his  chief  through  General  James  H.  Wilson,  who  was  on 
terms  of  intimacy  with  both  parties.  Grant  received  the 
communication  favorably  and  sent  the  name  of  Rawlins 
to  the  Senate  and  here  he  made  no  mistake.  But  Raw 
lins  lived  less  than  a  year  after  his  appointment. 

The  two  remaining  members  of  the  Cabinet,  General 
Jacob  D.  Cox,  of  Ohio,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  E. 
R.  Hoar,  of  Massachusetts,  Attorney-General,  were  ideal 
selections.  The  former  had  been  governor  of  his  state 
and  had  served  with  distinguished  valor  and  efficiency 
in  the  Civil  War.  The  latter  was  a  man  of  sparkling  wit 
and  conversational  powers,  which,  however,  did  not  out- 


338  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

shine  his  solid  qualities  of  mind  and  character.  Both 
these  men  came  early  into  collision  with  the  "spoils  sys 
tem,"  which  afflicted  the  whole  of  Grant's  administra 
tion  with  ever-increasing  virulence.  Both  of  them  fought 
a  losing  battle  with  it,  as  did  George  William  Curtis,  who 
essayed,  in  a  humbler  capacity,  to  grapple  with  it.  All 
three  were  retired,  or  retired  voluntarily,  before  the  end 
of  Grant's  first  term. 


The  plank  in  the  Republican  platform  forcing  negro 
suffrage  upon  the  South,  but  leaving  it  optional  with  the 
Northern  States,  was  too  brazen  to  be  long  maintained. 
Moreover,  there  was  danger  lest  this  right  of  the  negroes 
should  be  taken  from  them  after  the  Southern  States 
should  have  recovered  the  right  to  amend  their  own  con 
stitutions.  These  things  absorbed  the  attention  of  the 
Fortieth  Congress  during  the  last  month  of  its  exist 
ence. 

On  January  30, 1869,  the  House  passed  an  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  by  more  than  two-thirds  majority  in 
these  words: 

The  right  of  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  to  vote  shall  not 
be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States  or  any  state  by  rea 
son  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  slavery  of  any  citizen 
or  class  of  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

In  the  Senate,  Vickers,  of  Maryland,  moved  to  amend 
by  providing  that  the  right  to  vote  should  not  be  denied 
because  of  participation  in  the  rebellion.  This  was 
rejected  by  21  to  32,  but  it  received  the  votes  of  eleven 
Republicans,  among  whom  were  Grimes,  Harlan,  Trum- 
bull,  and  Wilson.  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  to 
add  the  words  "nativity,  property,  education,  or  creed" 
to  the  words  "race  or  color,"  and  this  was  adopted  by  31 


THE  FIFTEENTH  AMENDMENT  S39 

to  27,  Trumbull  voting  in  the  negative.  The  House 
rejected  the  amendment  by  37  to  133  and  sent  it  back  to 
the  Senate,  which,  by  a  vote  of  33  to  24,  receded  from  its 
amendment.  The  vote  was  then  taken  on  concurring  in 
the  House  Resolution  as  originally  presented,  and  it  failed 
by  31  to  27,  not  two  thirds. 

The  Senate  then  took  up  a  resolution  that  had  been 
previously  reported  by  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 
which  was  similar  in  terms  to  the  one  originally  passed  by 
the  House,  except  that  it  added  the  words  "and  hold 
office"  after  the  word  "vote."  The  resolution  was 
passed  by  35  to  11  and  sent  to  the  House.  Logan,  of  Illi 
nois,  moved  to  strike  out  the  words  "and  hold  office." 
This  was  defeated.  Bingham,  of  Ohio,  moved  to  insert 
the  words  "nativity,  property,  or  creed,"  after  the  word 
"color."  This  was  adopted  by  92  to  71,  and  the  resolu 
tion  passed  by  140  to  37.  The  Senate  disagreed  to  both 
of  the  House  amendments.  The  measure  then  went  to 
a  Conference  Committee  consisting  of  Senators  Stewart, 
Conkling,  and  Edmunds,  and  Representatives  Boutwell, 
Bingham,  and  Logan,  who  reported  in  favor  of  Logan's 
amendment  and  against  Bingham's,  and  in  this  shape  the 
resolution  passed  both  houses  by  the  requisite  majorities. 
If  the  word  "nativity"  had  been  retained  the  Southern 
States  could  not  have  disfranchised  the  negroes  by  means 
of  the  "  Grandfather  Clause,"  as  some  of  them  did. 
Morton,  of  Indiana,  predicted  that  the  South  would  find 
means  of  circumventing  the  clause  if  the  prohibitions 
were  limited  to  race,  color,  and  servitude.  When  Morton 
came  to  Washington  as  Senator  he  was  bitterly  opposed  to 
negro  suffrage.  He  was  now  so  hot  for  it  that  he  shared 
the  leadership  of  the  radicals  with  Sumner. 

The  Fifteenth  Amendment  as  finally  passed  by  Con 
gress,  February  26,  1869,  was  in  these  words: 


340  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

ARTICLE  XV 

SECTION  1.  The  right  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  to  vote 
shall  not  be  denied  or  abridged  by  the  United  States,  or  by  any 
state,  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition  of  servi 
tude. 

SECTION  2.  The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  enforce  this 
article  by  appropriate  legislation. 

It  was  declared  ratified  by  the  legislatures  of  twenty- 
nine  states  on  March  30,  1870.  Ohio  at  first  rejected, 
but  later  ratified  it.  New  York  at  first  ratified,  but  later 
reconsidered  and  rejected  it. 


CHAPTER  XXII 

CAUSES  OF  DISCONTENT 

IT  looks  at  this  distance  as  though  the  Republican  party  was 
"going  to  the  dogs"  —  which,  I  think,  is  as  it  should  be.  Like 
all  parties  that  have  an  undisturbed  power  for  a  long  time,  it 
has  become  corrupt,  and  I  believe  that  it  is  to-day  the  [most] 
corrupt  and  debauched  political  party  that  has  ever  existed. 
...  I  have  made  up  my  mind  that  when  I  return  home  I  will 
no  longer  vote  the  Republican  ticket,  whatever  else  I  may  do. 

So  wrote  James  W.  Grimes  to  Trumbull  under  date  of 
Heidelberg,  July  1,  1870.  Grimes  had  had  a  stroke  of 
paralysis  while  the  impeachment  trial  was  going  on,  but 
had  rallied  sufficiently  to  be  carried  into  the  Senate  to 
vote  not  guilty  on  every  article  on  which  a  vote  was 
taken,  and  to  give  his  reasons  for  doing  so.  He  shortly 
afterwards  resigned  his  seat,  announced  his  retirement 
from  public  life,  and  went  to  Europe  with  his  family. 
He  was  a  native  of  the  Granite  State,  a  man  of  granite 
mould,  of  unblemished  character,  undaunted  courage, 
keen  discernment,  and  untiring  industry.  In  Newspaper 
Row  he  was  styled  "Grimes  the  Sturdy"  -a  title  be 
stowed  upon  him  by  Adams  Sherman  Hill,  then  on  the 
Washington  staff  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  and  later 
Professor  of  Rhetoric  in  Harvard  University. 

Grimes 's  estimate  of  the  Republican  party  in  1870  was 
widely  shared.  Reconstruction,  measured  by  the  results 
of  five  years,  was  a  failure,  being  a  confused  medley  of 
ignorant  negro  voters,  disfranchised  whites,  disreputable 
carpetbaggers,  and  corrupt  legislatures.  The  civil  ser 
vice  was  honeycombed  with  whiskey  rings,  custom 
house  frauds,  assessments  on  office-holders,  nepotism, 


342  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

and  general  uncleanness.  President  Grant  had  trans 
ferred  his  army  headquarters  to  the  White  House.  When 
he  wanted  to  have  anything  done  in  which  he  felt  a  deep 
interest,  he  chose  an  aide-de-camp  for  the  purpose  in 
stead  of  a  civilian,  and  he  never  dreamed  that  anybody 
would  be  surprised  or  vexed  when  he  sent  Major  Babcock 
to  San  Domingo  to  negotiate  a  treaty  for  the  purchase  of 
that  country  for  the  sum  of  $1,500,000,  without  the  know 
ledge  of  the  Secretary  of  State  or  any  member  of  the  Cab 
inet.  He  called  at  Sumner's  house  to  secure  his  support 
for  the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  found  him  dining  with 
John  W.  Forney  and  Ben :  Perley  Poore,  and  had  a  hasty 
talk  with  him  about  a  treaty  concerning  San  Domingo, 
no  details  being  mentioned.  He  addressed  Sumner  as 
chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  to  which  he  sup 
posed  it  would  be  referred,  and  hoped  Sumner  would 
approve  of  the  treaty.  Sumner  replied  that  he  was  an 
Administration  man  and  that  he  would  give  very  careful 
and  candid  consideration  to  anything  which  the  Presi 
dent  desired. 

This  was  the  beginning  of  an  Iliad  of  woes.  Grant 
understood  Sumner's  answer  as  a  promise  to  support  the 
treaty,  whereas  Sumner  meant  no  more  than  his  words 
signified,  that  he  would  consider  it  on  its  merits,  but  in  a 
friendly  spirit.  It  was  not  his  custom  to  promise  to  sup 
port  treaties  before  seeing  them.  When  he  came  to  con 
sider  this  one,  he  found  that  he  could  not  support  it.  Nojt- 
only  was  Sumner's  judgment  adverse,  but  that  of  the 
press  and  other  organs  of  public  opinion  was  decidedly 
sp^  The  treaty  was  rejected  by  a  tie  vote  (two  thirds 
being  required  to  ratify).  Grant  put  all  the  blame  of 
rejection  on  Sumner.  He  thought  that  the  latter  had 
broken  a  promise  and  intentionally  deceived  him.  He 
marked  Sumner  for  destruction,  and  determined  to  have 


CAUSES  OF  DISCONTENT  343 

the  treaty  ratified  in  spite  of  him,  if  possible.  A  commis 
sion  of  investigation  had  been  authorized  by  Congress, 
after  the  rejection  of  the  treaty,  to  visit  San  Domingo, 
and  report  upon  the  advisability  of  the  purchase.  This 
was  by  way  of  letting  the  President  down  easy  rather 
than  with  any  serious  purpose  of  carrying  out  his  wishes. 
The  commission  consisted  of  Benjamin  F.  Wade,  Andrew 
D.  White,  and  Samuel  G.  Howe.  While  it  was  at  work 
steps  were  taken  to  reorganize  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations. 

Who  prompted  that  movement  was  never  divulged, 
but  the  attempt  and  its  failure  were  narrated  somewhat 
later  by  Senator  Tipton,  of  Nebraska,  in  open  Senate, 
without  contradiction.  Tipton  said  that  at  the  begin 
ning  of  the  Third  Session  of  the  Forty-first  Congress,  a 
motion  was  made  in  the  Republican  Senate  Caucus  to 
depose  Sumner  from  the  chairmanship  of  the  committee 
and  to  remove  Schurz,  of  Missouri,  and  Patterson,  of  New 
Hampshire,  from  membership  altogether.1  All  three  had 
voted  against  San  Domingo.  The  motion  had  been  nega 
tived  at  that  time,  but  the  purpose  had  not  been  aban 
doned. 

The  second  vote  on  deposing  Sumner  took  place  in  the 
Senate  March  10,  1871,  on  a  report  made  by  Senator 
Howe,  of  Wisconsin,  from  the  Republican ,  Caucus,  for 
the  assignment  of  committees  for  the  First  Session  of 
the  Forty-second  Congress.  The  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations,  as  reported,  had  the  name  of  Cameron  as 
Chairman,  and  Sumner  was  not  even  a  member  of  it. 
Then  a  debate  began  on  the  unusual  step  taken  by  the 
caucus  committee  in  deposing  Sumner,  without  his  own 
consent,  from  a  place  which  he  had  held  acceptably  dur 
ing  all  the  time  that  the  Republicans  had  controlled  the 

1  Cong.  Globe,  March  10,  1871,  p.  48. 


344  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Senate.  Wilson,  Schurz,  Logan,  Tipton,  and  Trumbull 
spoke  against  the  action  of  the  Caucus  Committee. 
Trumbull  said: 

I  am  not  the  special  friend  of  the  Senator  from  Massachu 
setts.  He  and  I,  during  our  long  course  of  service  here,  have  had 
occasion  to  differ,  and  differ,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  unpleasantly. 
But,  sir,  that  will  not  prevent  me  from  trying  to  do  justice  to 
the  Senator  from  Massachusetts.  I  stood  by  him  when  he  was 
stricken  down  in  his  seat  by  a  hostile  party,  by  the  powers  of 
slavery.  I  stand  by  him  to-day  when  the  blow  comes,  not  from 
those  who  would  perpetuate  slavery  and  make  a  slave  of  every 
man  that  was  for  freedom,  but  comes  from  those  who  have  been 
brought  into  power  as  much  through  the  instrumentality  of  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  as  of  any  other  individual  in  the 
country. 

But,  sir,  this  question  has  been  brought  before  us,  and  what 
shall  we  do?  I  tried  to  avoid  it.  I  have  appealed  to  my  asso 
ciates  and  I  have  said  to  them:  "We  are  very  much  divided; " 
I  say  to  them  now:  "We  are  very  much  divided."  A  few  votes 
one  way  or  the  other  constitute  the  majority  in  the  Republican 
party;  now  is  it  desirable,  is  it  best,  to  force  such  a  change  with 
such  an  opposition  as  has  manifested  itself  here?  What  is  to  be 
gained  by  it?  I  will  not  undertake  to  warn  the  Republican 
party  of  the  consequences.  ...  I  would  that  this  debate  had 
not  occurred,  that  we  could  have  paused  at  the  outset  when  we 
saw  this  difference  of  opinion,  and  that  there  could  have  been 
some  concession  even  to  those  in  the  minority  which  would 
have  avoided  this  state  of  things. 

Senator  Sherman  deprecated  the  action  of  the  majority. 
He  regarded  the  change  "unjustifiable,  impolitic,  and 
unnecessary,"  yet  he  offered  Sumner  advice,  like  that  of 
a  doctor  to  a  child  respecting  a  dose  of  castor  oil  —  to 
throw  his  head  back  and  take  it  off  quick,  because  it 
would  do  him  good,  thus: 

Therefore,  while  I  feel  bound  to  utter  my  opinion  that  this  is 
an  unwise  proceeding,  made  without  sufficient  cause,  yet  in  my 
judgment  it  ought  not  to  be  debated  here.  It  is  settled;  and  if 


CAUSES  OF  DISCONTENT  345 

my  honorable  friend  from  Massachusetts,  the  senior  senator 
in  this  body,  wishes  to  add  another  good  work  in  his  services  to 
his  country,  in  his  services  to  the  Republican  party,  he  cannot 
do  better  than  rise  in  his  place  and  say  that,  if  for  any  reason, 
whether  sufficient  or  insufficient,  a  majority  of  his  political  as 
sociates  think  it  better  for  him  to  retire  from  this  position,  he 
yields  gracefully  to  their  wish;  and  I  tell  him  that  a  new  chap- 
let  will  crown  his  brow,  and  when  his  memoirs  are  written  this 
will  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  proudest  opportunities  of  his  life.1 

Tipton  let  the  cat  out  of  the  bag  again  by  reading  from 
some  notes  he  had  made  of  the  proceedings  of  the  caucus 
of  the  previous  day.  He  said  that  Senator  Howe  in  the 
caucus  had  defended  the  action  of  the  committee  in  dis 
placing  Sumner,  on  the  ground  that  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations  was  not  in  harmony  with  the  Senate  on 
the  subject  of  San  Domingo,  and  that  in  order  to  correct 
this  disagreement  a  change  was  necessary;  whereas  Mr. 
Howe,  and  all  the  others  who  were  for  displacing  Sumner, 
now  contended  that  San  Domingo  had  nothing  to  do 
with  it.  Tipton  begged  leave  to  say  also  that  Howe  was 
wrong  in  his  contention  that  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  was  not  in  harmony  with  the  Senate,  the  vote 
on  the  treaty  having  been  28  to  28  (a  tie  vote  operated 
as  a  negative) .  In  other  words,  the  Senate  had  sustained 
the  committee,  and  there  was  no  disagreement  to  be  rec 
tified. 

Thereupon  Sherman  called  Tipton  to  order  for  divulg 
ing  the  secrets  of  the  caucus,  and  Tipton  replied  that  he 
had  read  all  the  proceedings  of  the  caucus  in  the  morning 
papers,  including  the  names  of  the  Senators  in  ihe>att  of 
The  yeas  and  nays,  26  to  21,  and  that  there  was  only  one 
error  in  the  whole  report  and  that  a  trifling  one.  Sher 
man  retorted  that  perhaps  Tipton  had  furnished  the 
report  to  the  newspapers,  but  the  latter  denied  it.  Sher- 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1871,  p.  51. 


346  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

man  then  insisted  that  the  newspaper  report  carried  no 
weight  unless  confirmed  by  a  Senator.  He  made  the 
charge  also  that  Tipton  had  been  guilty  of  divulging  the 
vote  on  the  treaty,  taken  in  executive  session.  To  this 
charge  Tipton  could  make  no  defense,  but  he  contended 
that  it  had  done  no  harm.  The  discussion  was  continued 
till  a  late  hour,  the  report  of  the  Caucus  Committee  being 
supported  in  debate  chiefly  by  Edmunds  and  Morton. 
The  latter  affirmed  that  San  Domingo  did  not  enter  into 
the  question  of  displacing  Sumner  now  —  implying  that 
it  might  have  been  the  bone  of  contention  earlier.  Mor 
ton's  statement  was  technically  true.  The  original  dis 
agreement  between  Sumner  and  the  President  had  been 
so  overlaid  with  fresh  material  that  it  was  now  relatively 
unimportant.  Moreover,  the  Senate  had  no  intention  of 
ratifying  the  annexation  treaty  even  if  the  Benjamin 
Wade  Commission  should  so  recommend  —  as  it  did. 
Morton  himself  had  no  such  intention. 

I  happened  to  be  in  Washington  at  this  juncture  and 
was  dining  with  the  late  Senator  Allison  (then  a  member 
of  the  House),  on  the  evening  before  the  report  was  pre 
sented.  He  informed  me  of  the  posture  of  affairs,  said 
that  Sumner  was  to  be  deposed,  and  that  Senator  Howe 
had  been  designated  to  report  a  resolution  to  that  effect. 
He  regarded  the  situation  as  fraught  with  peril  to  the 
Republican  party.  I  suggested  that  he  and  I  should  call 
upon  Senator  Howe  and  endeavor  to  prevent  or  perhaps 
delay  the  proposed  step.  Allison  assented.  So  we  went 
to  Howe's  apartments,  found  him  at  home  and  alone, 
and  we  labored  with  him  till  past  midnight,  seeking  in 
a  friendly  way  to  change  his  purpose,  but  without  avail. 
He  could  not  be  moved.  While  we  were  returning,  Alli 
son  said  that  Grant  must  have  played  his  last  trump  to 
break  the  custom  of  the  majority  in  the  Senate,  never  to 


CAUSES  OF  DISCONTENT  347 

displace  a  member  without  his  own  consent.  After  the 
deed  was  done,  I  called  upon  Sumner  and  had  a  conversa 
tion  with  him  on  the  subject.  He  said  that  the  most  puz 
zling  thing  to  him  was  the  part  taken  by  Senator  Anthony, 
of  Rhode  Island,  in  the  affair.  Anthony  was  chairman 
of  the  caucus.  He  appointed  the  Committee  on  Commit 
tees.  Anthony  was  his  friend,  a  very  close  friend.  He 
ought  to  have  known  beforehand  the  purposes  of  the  ma 
jority,  especially  since  an  attempt  to  displace  him  had 
been  made  at  the  previous  session.  Was  Anthony  him 
self  deceived,  or  was  he  a  party  to  the  transaction?  That 
was  the  puzzling  question. 

When  the  vote  was  taken  on  Howe's  report,  it  was 
adopted  by  a  large  majority.  The  dissentients  withheld 
their  votes,  as  they  did  not  choose  to  bolt  the  decision 
of  the  caucus  when  bolting  could  accomplish  nothing. 
The  result  was  a  fresh  grievance  added  to  the  growing 
stock  of  discontent. 

The  President's  first  blow  at  Sumner  had  been  the 
removal  of  his  friend  Motley  from  the  position  of  Min 
ister  to  England.  A  request  for  Motley's  resignation  was 
sent  on  July  1,  1870,  but  he  did  not  comply  with  it. 
In  the  mean  time  the  position  was  offered  to  Trumbull  in 
the  following  letter:1 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE,  WASHINGTON, 
Confidential.  GARRISONS,  August  5th,  1870. 

MY  DEAR  JUDGE, 

The  President  desires  me  to  ask  if  it  will  be  agreeable  to  you 
to  accept  the  Mission  to  London ;  if  so,  he  is  desirous  of  securing 
to  the  country  the  value  of  your  important  service  and  your 
experience  and  ability.  I  hope  most  sincerely  that  it  will  meet 
your  views  to  accept  this  Mission,  now  more  than  before  impor- 

1  E.  L.  Pierce,  in  his  Life  of  Sumner,  says  that  the  position  was  first  offered  to 
Frelinghuysen,  of  New  Jersey,  and  that  he  was  confirmed  by  the  Senate  on  the 
last  day  of  the  session.  Evidently  he  did  not  accept  it. 


348  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

tant.  The  events  now  happening  and  threatening  in  Europe 
require  the  presence  in  London  of  a  representative  of  ability,  of 
firmness,  of  learning,  and  of  calm  self-possession  —  and  your 
exceptional  possession  of  these  requisites  has  led  to  the  very 
strong  desire  of  the  President  and  niyself  that  you  would  un 
dertake  the  duties  of  the  position.  I  do  not  know  that  we  are 
on  the  eve  of  the  settlement  of  our  questions  with  Great  Brit 
ain,  but  there  are  reasons  to  justify  the  hope  that  very  impor 
tant  questions  may  be  adjusted  within  the  term  of  whoever  may 
succeed  Mr.  Motley.  The  complications  of  European  politics 
are  favorable  and  add  to  the  evident  desire  of  the  British 
Ministry  to  dispose  of  all  questions  between  the  two  countries. 
Can  you  come  here  and  pass  a  day  with  me?  I  can  tell  more 
than  I  can  write.  I  sincerely  hope  that  you  can  give  a  favorable 
answer;  for  reasons  which  you  will  understand  the  President 
desires  that  this  communication  be  considered  confidential,  at 
least  for  the  present.  Please  let  me  have  your  answer  as  soon 
as  you  conveniently  can. 

Very  faithfully  yours, 

HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL,  HAMILTON  FlSH. 

U.S.  SENATOR, 

KINGSTON,  ULSTER  Co.,  N.  Y. 

No  written  answer  to  this  letter  has  been  found.  A 
verbal  one  was  given  at  the  interview  which  Mr.  Fish 
invited.  Trumbull  declined  the  appointment  because  he 
preferred  to  remain  a  Senator  rather  than  to  be  a  diplo 
mat.  Probably  he  became  acquainted  at  this  time  with 
Secretary  Fish's  intention  to  move  for  a  settlement  of  our 
differences  with  Great  Britain:  for  in  a  speech  made  at 
Chicago  on  the  2d  of  November  following,  on  "Coming 
Issues,"  he  discussed  the  subject  of  our  claims  against 
that  country  at  considerable  length.  In  this  speech  he 
maintained  that  we  could  justly  ask  for  payment  of  the 
losses  sustained  by  the  depredations  of  the  Alabama  and 
other  British-built  cruisers,  and  that  we  had  a  still  deeper 
grievance,  although  one  not  computable  in  dollars  and 
cents,  growing  out  of  the  demand  made  upon  us  for  the 


CAUSES  OF  DISCONTENT  349 

surrender  of  the  rebel  envoys,  Mason  and  Slidell,  who 
were  captured  on  board  the  steamship  Trent  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Civil  War.  He  showed  by  the  estab 
lished  rules  of  international  law,  affirmed  by  British  pre 
cedents  and  practice,  that  persons,  papers,  and  materials 
in  the  enemy's  service  were  alike  contraband  and  subject 
to  capture  in  neutral  vessels  on  the  high  seas.1 

Another  "coming  issue"  referred  to  in  this  speech  was 
the  endeavor  to  break  up  and  abolish  the  iniquitous  sys 
tem  by  which  the  appointment  of  thirty-five  thousand 
officers  and  clerks  of  the  National  Government  was  made 
part  of  the  patronage  of  politicians;  and  to  carry  out  the 
principles  of  civil  service  reform  in  which  these  appoint 
ments  should  be  made  after  competitive  examinations  so 
as  to  secure  officers  of  "the  highest  fitness,  honesty,  and 
capacity."  In  his  argument  in  favor  of  this  reform  he 
instanced  the  experience  of  General  J.  D.  Cox,  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  who  had  found  it  necessary  to  resign  his 
office  because  he  could  not  purge  his  own  department  of 
spoilsmen  and  incompetents  foisted  upon  him  by  Sena 
tors  and  Representatives.  Cox's  resignation  had  caused 
intense  indignation  when  the  reasons  for  it  leaked  out. 
President  Grant  had  pledged  himself  to  the  reform  of  the 
civil  service  and  had  appointed  a  competent  commission 
to  carry  on  the  work,  and  was  really  desirous  that  it 

1  Mr.  Charles  F.  Adams  has  shown  in  a  recent  essay  that  the  British  Minis 
try  were  perfectly  aware  that  the  capture  of  Mason  and  Slidell  was  justifiable 
by  British  custom  and  precedent,  but  that  public  opinion  was  so  inflamed  on 
the  subject  that  they  were  swept  off  their  feet,  and  could  not  have  faced  Parlia 
ment  an  hour  if  they  had  not  demanded  the  surrender  of  the  prisoners.  On  the 
other  hand,  our  practice  and  precedents  were  directly  opposite.  The  American 
doctrine  was  "free  ships  make  free  goods"  and  a  fortiori  free  persons,  but  so 
inflamed  was  public  opinion  on  this  side  of  the  water  that  the  British  demand 
for  the  surrender  of  the  prisoners  would  have  been  refused  even  at  the  risk 
of  war,  if  we  had  not  had  one  war  on  hand  already.  Both  nations  "flopped" 
simultaneously.  The  Trent  Affair  —  an  Historical  Retrospect.  By  Charles 
Francis  Adams.  Boston,  1912. 


350  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

should  succeed,  but  he  was  not  willing  to  fight  for  it.  So 
when  Congressmen  fought  against  it  he  yielded  and  put 
the  blame  upon  them.  And  the  last  state  of  it  was  worse 
than  the  first.  "No  point  in  TrumbuH's  speech,"  says  the 
newspaper  account  of  it,  "was  more  significant  than  his 
endorsement  of  Secretary  Cox's  civil  service  reform,  and 
the  enthusiastic  cheering  with  which  the  large  audience 
unanimously  greeted  this  endorsement." 

Attorney-General  Hoar  had  retired  from  public  life 
some  months  earlier  and  for  much  the  same  reason.  He 
had  made  several  selections  to  fill  vacancies  on  the  bench 
of  the  Circuit  Court  with  an  eye  single  to  the  character 
and  legal  attainments  of  the  judges,  and  had  thereby 
incurred  the  enmity  of  most  of  the  Republican  Sena 
tors,  who  wanted  to  dictate  the  appointments.  It  hap 
pened  at  this  time  that  the  President  was  trying  to 
win  support  for  the  San  Domingo  Treaty,  and  he  found, 
or  supposed,  that  the  votes  of  certain  carpet-bag  Senators 
could  be  obtained  if  he  would  give  them  a  member  of 
the  Cabinet.  In  order  to  create  a  vacancy  he  nominated 
Attorney-General  Hoar  as  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
The  nomination  was  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee 
of  the  Senate,  consisting  of  Trumbull,  Edmunds,  Conk- 
ling,  Carpenter,  Stewart,  Rice  (of  Arkansas),  and  Thur- 
man.  Six  of  these  voted  against  Hoar.  The  only  affirma 
tive  vote  was  that  of  Trumbull.1 

After  Hoar  was  rejected,  the  President  asked  for  his  res 
ignation  as  Attorney-General  without  assigning  any  reason 
therefor,  and  when  it  was  handed  to  him  he  appointed  an 
obscure  but  respectable  lawyer  from  Georgia  of  the  name 
of  Akerman  as  Attorney-General,  to  please  the  carpet 
baggers;  but  this  move  did  not  secure  a  sufficient  num 
ber  of  votes  to  ratify  the  treaty,  nor  was  it  ever  ratified. 

1  Washington  letter  in  the  Nation,  January  6,  1870. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

THE   LIBERAL  REPUBLICANS 

THE  Liberal  Republican  movement  of  1872  took  its 
start  in  Missouri.  During  the  war  between  the  states, 
Missouri  had  been  a  prey  to  a  real  civil  war,  in  which 
much  blood  had  been  spilled,  and  where  churches,  com 
munities,  and  particular  families  had  been  torn  asunder. 
In  the  agricultural  districts  and  small  towns,  which  were 
nine  tenths  of  the  whole,  nobody,  whether  Secessionist,  or 
Unionist,  or  neutral,  could  feel  certain,  when  he  went  to 
bed,  whether  he  should  sleep  till  morning,  or  be  awakened 
after  midnight  by  a  guerilla  raid  or  a  burning  roof.  The 
contending  forces  were  not  unequally  divided.  The  Con 
federates  were  the  stronger  half  in  wealth  and  influence, 
although  not  in  numbers,  but  the  proximity  of  the  Fed 
eral  armies  and  their  actual  occupation  of  the  soil  gave 
a  preponderance  to  the  Unionists  and  strangled  secession 
in  its  infancy.  When  the  war  came  to  an  end,  all  the 
heart-burning  that  it  had  engendered  was  still  raging.  Not 
only  were  the  Republicans  in  power,  but  the  most  radical 
of  them  had  control  within  the  party.  Lincoln  was  not 
sufficiently  advanced  for  them.  They  had  refused  to 
vote  for  his  renomination  in  the  Convention  of  1864. 

In  the  state  constitution,  adopted  in  1865,  disfranchise- 
ment  and  test  oaths  abounded.  In  the  succeeding  four 
years  there  had  been  a  gradual  slackening  of  recrimina 
tion  and  intestine  strife;  and  a  line  of  cleavage  broke  in 
the  Republican  ranks  in  1869  which  resulted  in  the  elec 
tion  of  General  Carl  Schurz  as  United  States  Senator,  on 
the  issue  of  reenfranchisement  of  the  ex-rebels.  The  leader 


352  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

of  the  "party  of  eternal  hate,"  as  it  was  styled  by  its  oppo 
nents,  was  Charles  D.  Drake,  his  colleague  in  the  Senate. 
The  seat  taken  by  Schurz  was  that  formerly  held  by  John 
B.  Henderson,  who  had  lost  it  by  his  vote  against  im 
peachment. 

Schurz  was  a  torch-bearer  wherever  he  went,  and  his 
entry  into  the  Senate  gave  a  new  impetus  to  the  party  of 
peace  and  amnesty  not  only  in  his  own  state,  but  through 
out  the  country.  In  the  autumn  of  1870  a  battle  royal 
was  fought  in  Missouri,  beginning  in  the  Republican 
state  convention,  which  was  split  on  the  issue  of  reen- 
franchisement.  The  Liberals,  under  the  lead  of  Schurz, 
nominated  a  full  state  ticket  with  B.  Gratz  Brown  for 
governor.  The  radicals  nominated  Joseph  McClurg  for 
governor  and  a  full  ticket.  The  Democrats  made  no 
nominations,  but  supported  the  Liberal  nominees.  The 
election  resulted  in  a  sweeping  victory  for  the  Liberals. 
The  platform  on  which  Brown  was  chosen  declared  that 
the  time  had  come  "for  removing  all  disqualifications 
from  the  disfranchised  people  of  Missouri  and  conferring 
equal  political  rights  and  privileges  on  all  classes."  The 
other  platform  favored  reenfranchisement  "as  soon  as  it 
could  be  done  with  safety  to  the  state." 

Both  sections  adopted  a  resolution  saying:  "We  are 
opposed  to  any  system  of  taxation  which  will  tend  to  the 
creation  of  monopolies  and  benefit  one  industry  at  the 
expense  of  another."  This  was  interpreted  by  the  Mis 
souri  Democrat,  the  leading  Republican  newspaper  of  the 
state,  as  an  anti-tariff  deliverance.  Its  editor,  Colonel 
William  M.  Grosvenor,  was  a  party  organizer  of  keen 
intelligence  and  tireless  activity,  as  effective  in  his  own 
field  as  Schurz  was  in  his.  He  was  a  free-trader,  and  he 
gave  the  first  impulse  which  brought  the  revenue  reform 
ers  of  that  period  as  a  distinctive  element  into  the 


THE  LIBERAL  REPUBLICANS  353 

Liberal  movement.  The  only  organization  then  existing 
which  offered  any  resistance  to  the  demands  of  the  pro 
tected  classes  was  the  New  York  Free-Trade  League,  of 
which  Mahlon  Sands  was  secretary.  On  the  10th  of  No 
vember,  Sands  sent  out  an  invitation  to  persons  whom 
he  took  to  be  like-minded  with  himself,  including  Carl 
Schurz,  David  A.  Wells,  Jacob  D.  Cox,  William  Cullen 
Bryant,  E.  L.  Godkin,  Charles  F.  Adams,  Jr.,  General 
Brinkerhoff,  Edward  Atkinson,  and  others  to  a  confer 
ence  to  be  held  in  New  York  on  the  22d  of  that  month. 
The  declared  object  of  this  meeting  was  "to  determine 
whether  an  effort  may  not,  with  advantage,  be  made  to 
control  the  new  House  of  Representatives  by  a  union  of 
Western  Revenue  Reform  Republicans  with  Democrats." 
The  meeting  took  place  at  the  date  mentioned  and 
received  the  following  notice  in  the  Nation  of  December  1 : 

There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  activity  among  the  Revenue 
reformers  during  the  week.  On  the  23d  ult.  they  held  a  private 
meeting  in  this  city,  which  was  attended  by  Mr.  D.  A.  Wells, 
Mr.  George  Walker,  Mr.  Horace  White,  of  the  Chicago  Tri 
bune,  Mr.  Bryant,  Mr.  Bowles,  of  the  Springfield  Republican, 
and  others,  and  at  which,  after  a  good  deal  of  talk,  the  conclu 
sion  was  reached  that  things  were  looking  very  well;  that  the 
legislative  debates  of  the  coming  winter  would,  under  the  influ 
ence  of  the  late  elections,  probably  do  a  great  deal  to  educate 
the  public  and  prepare  the  monopolists  and  jobbers  for  what  is 
certainly  coming;  and  that  the  question  of  civil  service  reform 
was  closely  connected  with  that  of  the  reform  of  the  revenue, 
and  ought  to  be  discussed  and  pushed  with  it;  and  it  was 
resolved  finally  to  charge  a  committee  with  the  work  of  looking 
after  the  interest  of  both  in  a  general  way  during  the  winter, 
with  power  to  make  arrangements  for  the  calling  of  a  national 
convention  in  the  spring,  in  case  the  course  of  Congress  proved 
unsatisfactory.  The  usual  distribution  of  " British  gold"  did 
not  take  place,  it  must  be  confessed  to  the  regret  of  all  present. 
Indeed,  the  desire  for  it,  and  as  much  of  it  as  possible,  was 
avowed  with  the  greatest  effrontery.  The  open  display  of  such 


354  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

feelings  at  a  reform  meeting  was  a  curious  sign  of  the  times. 
Why  the  British  should  have  cut  off  the  supply  was  not 
explained,  but  we  presume  they  were  unable  to  withstand  the 
repeated  exposures  in  the  Tribune,  which  have  doubtless  made 
Minister  Thornton  wince  a  little. 

The  Speaker  of  the  House,  James  G.  Elaine,  got  wind 
of  the  Sands  circular  and  sought  an  interview  with  myself, 
coming  to  Chicago  for  that  purpose.  He  said  that  he 
recognized  the  drift  of  public  sentiment  on  the  tariff 
question,  that  he  desired  to  avert  anything  like  a  split  in 
the  Republican  ranks,  and  that  he  intended  to  give  the 
tariff  reformers  a  majority  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and 
Means  in  the  new  Congress.  He  submitted  that  they 
could  not  gain  more  than  that  by  a  fight,  and  that  it  was 
the  part  of  wisdom  to  be  satisfied  with  that.  He  said  that 
he  would  allow  us  to  name  two  Republican  members 
who,  in  conjunction  with  the  Democrats,  would  consti 
tute  a  majority.  I  reported  this  fact  to  the  members  of 
the  New  York  Conference  and  it  was  agreed  that  no  other 
steps  should  be  taken  in  reference  to  the  organization  of 
the  House.  G.  A.  Finkelnburg,  of  Missouri,  and  H.  C. 
Burchard,  of  Illinois,  were  selected  as  our  preference  for 
membership  of  the  committee.  The  names  were  com 
municated  to  Blame  and  they  were  appointed  by  him. 
He  even  went  beyond  his  promise  by  prompting  his 
friends  on  the  floor  to  favor  tariff  reform.  Eugene  Hale, 
of  Maine,  was  especially  zealous  in  this  behalf.  He  intro 
duced  a  bill  to  make  salt  free  of  duty,  and  accepted  an 
amendment  putting  coal  in  the  same  category  and  advo 
cated  it  with  earnestness  and  ability  and  carried  it 
through  the  House,  but  it  was  strangled  in  the  Senate. 
Dawes,  of  Massachusetts,  a  protectionist,  was  made 
chairman,  but  the  majority  of  the  committee  was  against 
him.  Protection,  at  that  time,  meant  the  highest  rate  of 


THE  LIBERAL  REPUBLICANS  355 

duty  on  imports  that  anybody  desired,  and  free  trade 
meant  any  opposition  to  protection  as  thus  interpreted. 
These  definitions  are  not  wholly  obsolete  at  the  present 
day. 

In  the  eyes  of  President  Grant  the  Liberal  movement 
in  Missouri  was  something  in  the  nature  of  a  new  rebel 
lion,  and  most  of  the  Republican  politicians  shared  his 
views.  The  necessity  of  keeping  the  party  in  power  by 
fair  means  or  foul  had  become  a  kind  of  religious  tenet. 
The  spectre  of  a  solid  South  and  a  divided  North  had 
been  terrifying  from  the  start.  What  would  happen  if 
the  example  of  Missouri  should  overspread  all  of  the 
reconstructed  states?  Seymour  had  carried  New  York 
and  New  Jersey  in  the  last  election.  The  solid  South 
added  to  these  would  have  made  him  President  of  the 
United  States.  No  wonder  that  such  Senators  as  Morton, 
Chandler,  Conkling,  and  the  Southern  carpet-baggers, 
at  the  opening  of  Congress  in  December,  1870,  gave 
a  chilling  reception  to  all  who  had  taken  part  in  the  Lib 
eral  campaign  of  Missouri,  or  who  sympathized  with  it. 
Anything  in  the  nature  of  investigation  of  frauds,  or  of 
reform  in  the  civil  service,  was  frowned  upon  by  them. 
All  who  favored  such  steps  were  accused  of  seeking  to  split 
the  party  and  build  a  new  one  upon  its  ruins.  This  was  a 
false  accusation.  The  Administration  could  have  averted 
the  coming  revolt  by  removing  its  causes.  The  Nation  of 
December  8,  1870,  said  with  truth: 

What  has  been  taken  for  a  desire  or  design  to  found  a  new 
party  has  been  simply  a  design  to  make  the  old  party  attend  to 
the  proper  business  of  the  party  in  power,  by  legislating  for  the 
necessities  of  the  time.  There  is  a  strong  disposition  on  the 
part  of  the  old  hacks  not  to  do  this,  but  to  go  on  infusing 
"economy  and  efficiency  in  the  collection  of  the  revenue,"  and 
nothing  would  please  them  better  than  that  those  who  are  not 
satisfied  with  this  should  take  themselves  off  and  try  to  estab- 


356  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

lish  a  little  concern  of  their  own,  and  give  no  further  trouble. 
We  believe  the  intention  of  the  malcontents,  however,  is,  and 
always  has  been,  to  stay  where  they  are  and  give  all  the  trouble 
they  can.  Whenever  the  time  conies  to  establish  a  new  party, 
it  will  make  its  appearance,  whether  anybody  charges  himself 
with  the  special  work  of  getting  it  up  or  not. 

Among  the  sources  of  discontent  disfranchisement  was 
the  most  pressing,  since  it  was  believed  to  be  the  chief  cause 
of  the  shocking  conditions  in  the  South.  Other  things 
could  wait.  This  was  the  "house-on-fire";  it  must  be  pnt 
out  at  once.  The  Liberals  said  that  universal  amnesty 
with  impartial  suffrage  was  the  true  cure.  The  ruling 
powers  at  Washington  maintained  that  the  Southern 
whites  were  still  rebellious  and  that  a  new  law,  backed 
by  adequate  military  power,  was  needed  to  deal  with  the 
Ku-Klux  Klans,  which  were  terrorizing  the  blacks  in 
order  to  prevent  them  from  voting.  The  President  sent  a 
special  message  of  twenty  lines  to  Congress  on  March  23, 
calling  attention  to  this  condition  of  affairs  and  recom 
mending  some  action,  he  did  not  say  what.  The  brevity 
and  indecision  of  it  betokened  reluctance  on  his  part  to 
send  any  message  at  all.  Congress,  however,  took  the 
subject  in  earnest  and  passed  the  Ku-Klux  Bill  of  1871, 
which  authorized  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
and  the  employment  of  military  force  in  dealing  with  the 
Ku-Klux  outrages.  Trumbull  and  Schurz  opposed  the 
bill  by  speech  and  by  vote,  the  former  on  the  ground  of 
unconstitutionality,  the  latter  chiefly  on  the  ground  of 
impolicy,  although  he  also  considered  it  unconstitutional. 
Trumbull  contended  that  the  Constitution  never  con 
templated  that  the  ordinary  administration  of  criminal 
law  in  the  states  should  be  in  the  hands  of  the  Federal 
Government  and  that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  did 
not  change  the  lodgment  of  that  power  from  the  state  to 


THE  LIBERAL  REPUBLICANS  357 

the  federal  authorities.   He  did  not  make  a  set  speech  on 
the  bill,  but  in  an  impromptu  debate  he  said: 

Show  me  that  it  is  necessary  to  exercise  any  power  belonging 
to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  order  to  maintain 
its  authority  and  I  am  ready  to  put  it  forth.  But,  sir,  I  am  not 
willing  to  undertake  to  enter  the  states  for  the  purpose  of  pun 
ishing  individual  offences  against  their  authority  committed 
by  one  citizen  against  another.  We,  in  my  judgment,  have  no 
constitutional  authority  to  do  that.  When  this  Government 
was  formed,  the  general  rights  of  person  and  property  were 
left  to  be  protected  by  the  states  and  there  they  are  left  to-day. 
Whenever  the  rights  that  are  conferred  by  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  on  the  Federal  Government  are  infringed 
upon  by  the  states,  we  should  afford  a  remedy.  ...  If  the  Fed 
eral  Government  takes  to  itself  the  entire  protection  of  the  indi 
vidual  in  his  rights  of  person  and  property  what  is  the  need  of 
the  State  Governments?  It  would  be  a  change  in  our  form  of 
Government  and  an  unwise  one,  in  my  judgment,  because  I 
believe  that  the  rights  of  the  people,  the  liberties  of  the  people, 
the  rights  of  the  individual,  are  safest  among  the  people  them 
selves,  and  not  in  a  central  government  extending  over  a  vast 
region  of  country.  I  think  that  the  nearer  you  can  bring  the 
administration  of  justice  between  man  and  man  to  the  people 
themselves,  the  safer  the  people  will  be  in  their  rights  of  person 
and  property.1 

He  objected  also  to  the  clause  of  the  bill  authorizing 
the  President  to  suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  as  in 
conflict  with  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  limits 
suspension  to  cases  of  invasion  or  rebellion  where  the 
public  safety  requires  it.  There  was  no  present  invasion 
to  justify  it  and  no  rebellion  in  the  proper  definition  of 
that  term.  He  quoted  authorities  showing  that  rebellion 
meant  an  armed  uprising  against  the  Government,  such 
as  existed  in  1861  and  continued  till  the  end  of  the  war. 
No  such  condition  existed  now. 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1871,  pp.  578-79. 


358  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Schurz's  speech,  delivered  on  the  14th  of  April,  was  a 
masterpiece  of  political  philosophy,  not  inferior  to  any 
thing  in  the  orations  of  Edmund  Burke.  It  was  a  plea 
for  the  abrogation  of  all  political  disabilities.  It  occu 
pies  three  pages  of  the  Congressional  Globe.  Among  other 
things  he  said: 

On  the  whole,  sir,  let  us  not  indulge  in  the  delusion  that  we 
can  eradicate  all  the  disorders  that  exist  in  the  South  by  means 
of  laws  and  by  the  application  of  penal  statutes.  Laws  are  apt  to 
be  especially  inefficacious  when  their  constitutionality  is,  with 
a  show  of  reason,  doubted,  and  when  they  have  the  smell  of 
partisanship  about  them;  and  however  pure  your  intentions 
may  be  (and  I  know  they  are) ,  in  that  lighV  a  law  like  this, 
unless  greatly  modified,  will  appear  suspicious.  If  we  want  to 
produce  enduring  effects  there,  our  remedies  must  go  to  the 
root  of  the  evil;  and  in  order  to  do  that,  they  must  operate  upon 
public  sentiment  in  the  South.  I  admit  that  in  that  respect  the 
principal  thing  cannot  be  done  by  us:  it  must  be  done  by  the 
Southern  people  themselves.  But  at  any  rate,  we  can  in  a  great 
measure  facilitate  it.1 

Edmunds  and  Carpenter,  of  the  Judiciary  Committee, 
held  that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitu 
tion  gave  power  to  the  federal  authorities  to  enforce  the 
ordinary  criminal  law  as  between  persons  in  the  states. 
Some  years  later  a  case,  arising  under  this  Ku-Klux  Law 
in  Tennessee,  reached  the  Supreme  Court,  where  it  was 
pronounced  unconstitutional  and  void.  The  court  held 
that  the  three  latest  amendments  of  the  Constitution  pro 
hibited  the  states  from  discriminating  against  citizens  on 
account  of  race  or  color,  but  did  not  change  the  adminis 
tration  of  the  criminal  law  in  the  states.  That  jurisdic 
tion  remained  with  the  states  exclusively.  Here  Trum- 
bull's  position  was  sustained  almost  in  his  own  words.2 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1871,  p.  688. 

2  United  States  v.  Hants,  106  U.S.  629. 


THE  LIBERAL  REPUBLICANS  359 

While  the  Ku-Klux  Act  was  doing  its  work  in  South 
Carolina  under  suspension  of  the  habeas  corpus,  the  Senate 
on  December  20,  1871,  took  up  a  bill  which  had  passed 
the  House  by  more  than  two-thirds  majority  to  remove 
the  legal  and  political  disabilities  imposed  by  the  Four 
teenth  Amendment,  except  in  a  few  cases.  Sumner  moved 
as  an  amendment  a  bill  which  he  had  previously  offered 
as  a  separate  measure,  that  all  citizens,  without  distinc 
tion  of  race  or  color,  should  have  equal  rights  in  steam 
boats,  railway  cars,  hotels,  theatres,  churches,  jury  serv 
ice,  common  schools,  colleges,  and  cemeteries,  whether 
under  federal  or  State  authority.  Trumbull,  and  the  two 
Senators  from  South  Carolina,  besought  him  not  to 
encumber  the  Amnesty  Bill,  which  required  a  two-thirds 
vote,  with  the  Equal  Rights  Bill  which  required  only  a 
majority,  since  they  believed  that  both  could  be  passed 
separately,  but  that  if  his  bill  were  tacked  upon  the 
Amnesty  Bill,  both  would  fail.  Sumner  insisted  upon  his 
amendment,  and  a  vote  was  taken  on  it,  February  9, 
resulting  in  a  tie  (Trumbull  and  Schurz  voting  in  the 
negative),  whereupon  the  Vice-President  (Coif ax)  voted 
in  the  affirmative.  The  Sumner  amendment  having  been 
adopted,  all  the  Democrats  turned  against  the  bill  and  it 
was  lost  by  33  to  19,  not  two  thirds. 

A  second  attempt,  beginning  in  the  House,  had  the 
same  result.  When  the  bill  was  taken  up  in  the  Senate 
Sumner  again  moved  his  Equal  Rights  Bill  as  an  amend 
ment,  and  it  was  again  adopted  by  the  casting  vote  of  the 
Vice-President,  and  then  the  whole  was  lost  by  32  to  22. 

In  the  mean  time  the  Liberal  Republican  Convention 
had  met  at  Cincinnati  and  adopted  a  platform  very 
emphatic  on  the  subject  of  amnesty.  A  sudden  change 
came  over  the  spirit  of  the  regulars.  The  Amnesty  Bill 
was  reintroduced  in  the  House  by  General  Butler,  May 


360  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

13,  and  passed  the  same  day  without  debate.  It  was 
taken  up  in  the  Senate,  May  21.  Sumner's  Equal  Rights 
Bill,  when  offered  in  a  modified  form  as  an  amendment, 
was  rejected  by  11  to  31,  and  the  bill  was  passed  the  same 
day  by  38  to  2,  the  negatives  being  Sumner  and  Nye. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION 

THE  demerits  of  the  first  Grant  Administration  were 
the  principal  cause  of  the  Liberal  uprising  of  1872.  They 
were  enumerated  in  detail  by  Charles  Sumner  in  open 
Senate,  on  May  31  of  that  year.  They  need  not  be  reit 
erated  here.  I  have  no  inclination  to  rake  over  the  ashes 
of  a  dead  controversy  or  to  detract  from  the  fame  of  one 
who  rendered  inestimable  service  to  the  nation  in  its  great 
est  crisis,  without  which  all  other  service  might  have  been 
unavailing.  At  the  same  time,  the  thread  of  this  narra 
tive  requires  some  notice  of  the  stings  planted  in  the  minds 
of  sensitive  persons,  who  were  not  seeking  office,  by  the 
man  who  was  then  the  nation's  head. 

Grant's  shortcomings  in  civil  station  were  such  as 
might  have  been  expected  from  one  who  was  suddenly 
charged  with  vast  responsibilities  without  his  own  solici 
tation  or  desire  and  without  any  previous  experience  or 
training  for  them.  His  most  striking  characteristic  was 
tenacity.  Whether  on  the  right  track  or  on  the  wrong,  he 
was  deaf  and  blind  to  obstacles  and  opposition,  because 
there  was  resistance  to  be  overcome.  This  quality  was 
reflected  in  his  determination  "never  to  desert  a  friend 
under  fire"  -a  maxim  more  generous  than  wise,  fitter 
for  the  field  than  for  the  forum,  and  which  in  his  last 
days  brought  misfortunes  to  his  own  door  which  were 
lamented  by  everybody. 

The  Republican  politicians  nominated  him  for  Pres 
ident,  not  because  they  deemed  him  qualified  for  the  posi 
tion,  but  because  of  his  military  renown.  He  was  elected 


362  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

at  a  time  when  military  habits  and  modes  of  thought  were 
the  worst  possible  equipment  for  the  solution  of  political 
problems.  Nevertheless,  he  rendered  great  service  on  two 
occasions  —  in  the  settlement  of  the  Alabama  Claims 
and  by  vetoing  the  Currency  Inflation  Bill.  In  both  these 
cases  he  was  much  indebted  to  Hamilton  Fish,  his  Secre 
tary  of  State,  but  the  credit  is  justly  his  own  and  the  fame 
thereof  will  outlast  all  the  scandals  that  arose  from  his 
confidence  in,  and  association  with,  such  characters  as 
Orville  Babcock,  John  McDonald,  Ben  Butler,  W.  W. 
Belknap,  and  Tom  Murphy. 

The  rottenness  of  the  New  York  Custom-House  was  a 
crying  evil  before  Grant  became  President,  and  its  flavor 
was  not  improved  by  the  appointment  of  Murphy  as  its 
chief  officer.  It  was  crammed  with  men  who  "had  to  be 
taken  care  of,"  whose  work  was  not  needed  by  the  Gov 
ernment,  and  who  were  incompetent  even  if  it  had  been 
needed — small  politicians,  district  leaders  and  "heelers," 
who  were  useful  in  carrying  primaries  and  getting  del 
egates  elected  to  conventions.  A  Joint  Committee  on 
Retrenchment,  organized  as  early  as  1866  and  kept  alive 
by  every  subsequent  Congress,  had  been  investigating 
frauds  and  abuses  in  various  quarters.  Its  chairman, 
Senator  Patterson,  of  New  Hampshire,  made  a  report 
early  in  1871  containing  many  interesting  disclosures. 

On  December  11,  Senator  Conkling  offered  a  resolu 
tion  directing  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  to 
inquire  into  the  defalcation  of  an  army  paymaster  named 
Hodge.  Trumbull  moved  as  an  amendment  that  the 
Joint  Committee  on  Retrenchment  be  reconstituted  and 
instructed  to  make  a  general  investigation  of  the  waste 
and  loss  of  money  in  the  public  service.  A  debate  sprang 
up  on  the  proposed*  amendment,  which  continued  for  a 
week  and  aroused  keen  interest  throughout  the  country. 


GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION  363 

Wilson,  the  chairman  of  the  Military  Committee,  sus 
tained  the  amendment,  saying  that  the  Hodge  case  did 
not  appertain  to  military  matters,  but  to  finance,  to  the 
handling  of  public  money.  Sumner  took  the  same  view. 
Chandler  objected  to  a  joint  committee  with  power  to 
investigate  all  the  executive  departments.  He  preferred 
to  have  each  department  investigated  by  a  separate  com 
mittee,  if  it  needed  investigation.  In  the  course  of  the 
debate  extracts  were  read  from  the  Patterson  Report, 
together  with  the  testimony  of  witnesses.  Weighers  in  the 
custom-house  testified  that  men  were  sent  to  them  by  the 
collector  as  assistants  for  whom  there  was  no  work  to  do. 
They  were  simply  put  on  the  pay-roll  and  did  nothing  but 
draw  their  salaries.  In  the  weighers'  department  alone 
$50,000  per  year  was  thus  squandered.  Collector  Mur 
phy  was  quoted  as  saying,  in  answer  to  a  remonstrance 
about  unnecessary  help  in  the  custom-house,  "There  were 
certain  people  who  had  to  be  taken  care  of:  it  was  well 
known  that  they  had  to  be  taken  care  of,  and  nobody 
in  the  party  would  say  anything  about  his  taking  care  of 
them,  and  he  would  do  it."  1 

Trumbull  said  that  he  did  not  denounce  officers  of  the 
Government  indiscriminately.  He  merely  wished  to  have 
some  system  introduced  by  which  appointments  should 
be  made  with  regard  to  the  fitness  of  the  appointees  and 
the  need  of  their  services.  As  the  debate  enlarged,  a  line 
of  cleavage  was  disclosed  among  Senators  similar  to  that 
which  occurred  on  the  deposition  of  Sumner;  Morton, 
Conkling,  Chandler,  Edmunds,  and  Sherman  opposing, 
and  Schurz,  Sumner,  Logan,  Tipton,  and  Wilson  sup 
porting,  the  Trumbull  amendment.  Finally  the  Repub 
lican  Senatorial  Caucus  took  the  matter  in  hand  and 
adopted  a  substitute  to  the  Trumbull  Resolution,  which 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1871,  p.  51. 


364  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

was  offered  in  the  Senate  by  Anthony  and  adopted  by  29 
to  18.  It  provided  for  a  select  committee  to  investigate 
only  such  subjects  as  the  Senate  should  designate. 

One  of  the  things  stumbled  on  by  the  Patterson  Com 
mittee  was  the  "general  order"  system  in  the  New  York 
Custom-House,  which  led  up  to  the  Leet  and  Stocking 
scandal,  one  of  the  most  exasperating  incidents  of  the 
Grant  regime.  Leet  had  been  a  member  of  General 
Grant's  staff.  The  Patterson  Committee  found  that  he 
was  enjoying  the  rank  and  pay  of  a  colonel  in  the  army, 
and  also  of  a  clerk  in  the  War  Department,  and  was  receiv 
ing  an  additional  income,  estimated  at  $50,000  per  year, 
for  the  warehousing  of  imported  goods  in  New  York, 
without  the  expenditure  of  any  labor  or  capital  of  his  own 
and  without  even  his  personal  presence  in  New  York,  he 
being  a  resident  of  Washington  City.  All  goods  arriving 
by  the  Cunard  and  Bremen  lines  were  sent  by  the  collec 
tor's  order  to  the  Leet  and  Stocking  warehouse,  and  were 
required  to  pay  one  month's  storage  whether  they 
remained  there  a  month  or  only  a  day,  the  cost  being  not 
less  than  $1.50  per  package.  This  "general  order"  sys 
tem  had  been  devised  before  the  Republican  party  came 
into  power.  It  was  flourishing  in  1862. l  Collector  Grin- 
nell,  Grant's  first  appointee  to  that  position,  found  it  in 
force  when  he  came  into  office.  Before  it  was  devised 
the  arriving  goods  had  been  stored  temporarily  in  ware 
houses  belonging  to  the  steamship  companies,  adjacent 
to  the  docks,  without  cost  to  the  owners. 

When  the  Patterson  Committee  made  this  discovery 
they  reported  the  facts  personally  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  (Boutwell),  who  appointed  a  board  of  three 
officers  of  the  department  to  make  an  independent  inves 
tigation.  This  board  made  a  report  sustaining  the  find- 

1  See  House  report  No.  50,  37th  Congress,  3d  session,  page  38. 


GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION  365 

ings  of  the  Patterson  Committee.  Boutwell  thereupon 
wrote  to  Collector  Murphy,  who  had  succeeded  Grinnell 
as  collector,  advising  him  to  discontinue  the  "general 
order"  system  altogether  and  go  back  to  the  old  system, 
no  good  reasons  for  the  former  change,  but  many  objec 
tions  to  it,  having  been  found.  Months  passed  after 
Boutwell's  letter  was  sent,  but  the  "general  order"  sys 
tem  was  still  flourishing  and  the  coffers  of  Leet  and  Stock 
ing  were  still  receiving  an  income,  at  least  double  that  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  as  a  reward  for  putting 
an  obstruction  in  the  pathway  of  lawful  commerce.  A.  T. 
Stewart,  Grant's  first  choice  for  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
testified  that  the  "general  order"  system  was  a  damage 
to  honest  traffic  and  a  general  nuisance.  William  E. 
Dodge  testified  that  he  had  been  compelled  by  it  to  cur 
tail  his  imports  at  New  York  and  to  use  other  ports  of 
entry  to  avoid  the  delays  and  exactions  of  the  "general 
order"  system. 

The  indifference  of  the  only  man  higher  up  than  Secre 
tary  Boutwell  —  the  only  man  who  had  power  to  remove 
Collector  Murphy  or  to  choke  off  Leet  —  was  incompre 
hensible.  Schurz  made  comments  on  the  case  which  the 
Administration  Senators  could  not  answer  and  dared  not 
leave  unanswered.  On  the  18th  of  December,  Conklin^ 
introduced  a  resolution  directing  the  Committee  on  Inves 
tigation  and  Retrenchment  to  make  an  inquiry  into  the 
Leet  and  Stocking  scandal.  This  resolution  was  preceded 
by  a  preamble  quoting  the  words  of  Schurz  as  a  reason 
for  making  the  inquiry,  in  the  following  form : 

Whereas  it  has  been  declared  in  the  Senate  that  at  the  port 
of  New  York  there  exists  and  is  maintained  by  officers  of  the 
United  States  under  the  name  of  the  "  General  Order  business" 
a  monstrous  abuse  fraudulent  in  character,  and  whereas  the 
following  statement  has  been  made  by  a  Senator:  "It  was  inti- 


366  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

mated  by  some  of  the  witnesses  that  Mr.  Leet,  who  pockets  the 
enormous  profits  arising  from  that  business,  had  some  connec 
tion  with  the  White  House;  but  General  Porter  was  examined, 
Mr.  Leet  himself  was  examined,  and  they  both  testified  that  it 
was  not  so,  and,  counting  the  number  of  witnesses,  we  have  no 
right  to  form  a  different  conclusion.  But  the  fact  remains  that 
this  scandalous  system  of  robbery  is  sustained  —  is  sustained 
against  the  voice  of  the  merchants  of  New  York  —  is  sustained 
against  the  judgment  and  the  voice  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Trea 
sury  himself.  I  ask  you  how  is  it  sustained?  Where  and  what  is 
the  mysterious  power  that  sustains  it?  The  conclusion  is  inevita 
ble  that  it  is  stronger  than  decent  respect  for  public  opinion,  nay, 
a  power  stronger  than  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  himself  " : 
Therefore  resolved,  that  the  Committee  of  Investigation  and 
Retrenchment  be  instructed  to  inquire  into  the  matter  fully 
and  at  large,  and  particularly  whether  any  collusion  or  impro 
per  connection  with  said  business  exists  on  the  part  of  any 
officer  of  the  United  States,  and  that  said  committee  further 
inquire  whether  any  person  holding  office  in  the  custom-house 
at  New  York  has  been  detected  or  is  known  or  believed  by 
his  superior  officer  to  have  been  guilty  of  bribery  or  of  taking 
bribes  or  of  other  crime  or  misdemeanor,  and  said  committee 
is  hereby  empowered  to  send  for  persons  and  papers. 

The  Committee  of  Investigation  and  Retrenchment 
had  not  been  appointed  when  Conkling  offered  this  reso 
lution.  It  had  been  agreed  upon  in  the  Republican  Cau 
cus,  but  had  not  been  reported  to  the  Senate.  Senator 
Anthony  immediately  reported  the  names:  Bucking 
ham  (Connecticut),  Pratt  (Indiana),  Howe  (Wisconsin), 
Harlan  (Iowa),  Stewart  (Nevada), Pool  (North Carolina), 
Bayard  (Delaware).  Sumner  expressed  mild  surprise 
that  no  Senator  who  had  favored  an  investigation  of  the 
New  York  Custom-House,  or  of  frauds  in  general,  was 
a  member  of  the  committee,  unless  Bayard  (Democrat) 
might  be  counted  as  such.  He  quoted  from  Jefferson's 
"Manual  of  Parliamentary  Law"  to  show  that  the 
proper  course  was  to  give  the  leading  place  in  such  a  com- 


GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION  367 

mittee  to  the  prime  mover  of  it,  who  was,  in  this  case, 
undoubtedly  Trumbull,  but  that  nobody  who  had  shown 
any  interest  in  the  matter  to  be  investigated,  not  even 
the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  (Patterson),  whose 
investigation  of  the  previous  session  had  uncovered  the 
alleged  frauds,  and  whose  familiarity  with  the  case  would 
be  most  useful  now,  had  any  place  on  it.  Anthony  con 
tended  that  inasmuch  as  all  the  Senators  had  voted  to 
raise  the  Committee,  the  vote  having  been  unanimous,  all 
the  requirements  of  parliamentary  law  were  satisfied  by 
the  appointment  of  the  seven  Senators  named,  or  any 
other  seven.  Thurman,  of  Ohio,  thought  that  Anthony 
was  "sticking  in  the  bark"  and  not  reaching  the  sound 
wood  of  the  tree.  Considerable  time  was  spent  in  the 
debate  on  the  composition  of  the  committee,  but  in  the 
end  the  list  reported  by  Anthony  was  adopted,  as  was 
Conkling's  resolution,  with  its  bulky  preamble.  The 
preamble  was  doubtless  intended  to  convince  Grant  that 
Schurz  (not  Conkling)  made  the  investigation  necessary. 
The  committee  went  to  work  early  in  1872  and  eventually 
furnished  a  solution  of  the  Leet  and  Stocking  mystery. 

Leet  learned  in  1868,  soon  after  Grant's  election,  that 
he  intended  to  appoint  Moses  H.  Grinnell  collector  of  the 
port  of  New  York.  He  procured  from  Grant  a  letter  of 
introduction  to  Grinnell,  but  Grant  cautioned  him,  when 
he  gave  it,  not  to  use  it  for  the  purpose  of  getting  an  office. 
When  Leet  handed  the  letter  to  Grinnell  he  remarked  to 
him  that  he  (Grinnell)  was  to  be  appointed  collector  of 
the  port.  Grinnell  had  not  received  any  intimation  of  the 
fact  before,  and  he  inferred  that  Leet  had  been  designated 
by  the  President  to  inform  him  of  it.  He  asked  Leet  what 
he  could  do  for  him,  and  Leet  replied  that  he  wanted  the 
"general  order"  business  of  the  custom-house.  Grinnell 
thought  that  this  also  was  a  message  from  the  President, 


368  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

and  he  arranged  as  soon  as  possible  to  give  Leet  a  portion 
of  it.  Leet  farmed  out  this  portion  to  a  man  named  Bixby 
for  $5000  per  year,  plus  one  half  of  all  the  profits  in  excess 
of  $10,000.  Then  he  went  back  to  Washington  and 
resumed  his  place  as  a  clerk  in  the  War  Department;  but 
he  complained  bitterly  to  Grinnell  that  his  share  in  the 
"general  order"  business  was  not  large  enough,  and  he 
told  Grinnell  that  he  would  be  removed  from  office  if  he 
did  not  give  him  the  whole  of  it.  After  much  threatening, 
Grinnell  did  give  him  the  whole  of  it,  but  he  was  removed, 
nevertheless,  after  holding  the  office  about  one  year,  and 
Murphy  was  appointed  collector  in  his  place.  Murphy 
kept  the  "general  order"  business  in  the  hands  of  Leet 
and  Stocking  until  March,  1872,  when  the  committee 
made  its  report.  On  the  14th  of  March,  the  newspapers 
announced  that  Murphy  had  been  removed  as  collector 
and  General  Arthur  appointed  in  his  place,  that  the  "gen 
eral  order"  business  had  been  radically  reformed,  and 
that  Leet  and  Stocking  had  disappeared  from  history.  In 
making  this  announcement  the  Nation  called  the  atten 
tion  of  the  editor  of  Harper's  Weekly  (George  William 
Curtis),  who  was  still  a  little  deaf  to  the  shortcomings  of 
the  Administration,  to  some  things  hard  to  understand. 

When  the  President  [it  said]  became  aware  that  Leet  had 
abused  his  confidence,  disregarded  his  wishes,  made  false  repre 
sentations  as  to  his  influence  over  him,  and  concealed  his  doings 
from  him,  —  facts  which  were  revealed  by  the  repeated  com 
plaints  of  prominent  merchants  and  by  Leet's  appearance  in 
public  as  owner  of  the  "plum/*  and  finally  by  a  congressional 
investigation,  —  he  took  no  notice  of  them  whatever.  So  far 
as  we  know  he  gave  no  sign  of  displeasure,  paid  no  attention  to 
the  complaints  against  him,  and  let  him  go  on  for  nearly  two 
years  preying  on  the  commerce  of  the  port,  till  a  second  con 
gressional  investigation,  obtained  with  great  difficulty,  and 
the  savage  assaults  of  the  press  on  the  eve  of  an  election,  made 


GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION  369 

the  change  we  have  just  witnessed  imperatively  necessary.  It 
has  been  the  custom  of  the  friends  of  the  Administration 
hitherto  whenever  charges  of  this  kind  are  brought  up,  instead 
of  answering  them,  to  tell  you  that  they  endear  the  President 
more  than  ever  to  the  American  people;  that  his  renomination 
is  a  sure  thing,  etc. ;  and  that  Horace  Greeley  is  a  friend  of  Hank 
Smith.  Now  is  this  satisfactory?  Let  us  have  a  candid  answer, 
without  allusions  to  cigars,  or  fast  horses,  or  investments,  or 
summer  vacations,  Hank  Smith,  or  Horace  Greeley. 

No  dollar  of  the  Leet  and  Stocking  "  plum  "ever  reached 
President  Grant  or  any  member  of  his  family.  We  are 
left  to  conjecture  what  were  his  reasons  for  allowing  the 
scandal  to  continue  so  long  after  the  facts  became  known. 
Judging  his  course  here  by  his  second  term,  we  are  forced 
to  conclude  that  his  combativeness  was  aroused  by  the 
criticisms  of  Schurz,  Trumbull,  and  others,  which  he  inter 
preted  as  marks  of  personal  hostility  to  himself.  In  fact, 
his  senatorial  supporters  so  interpreted  them  in  public 
discussions.  He  probably  upheld  Leet  for  the  same  rea 
sons  that  he  shielded  Babcock  in  the  greater  scandal  of 
the  St.  Louis  Whiskey  Ring  in  1876. 1  It  was  a  mistake, 
however,  to  suppose  (if  he  did  suppose)  that  Trumbull  was 
moved  by  any  personal  hostility.  An  interview  with  the 
latter,  dated  December  3,  1871,  published  in  the  Louis 
ville  Courier- Journal,2  shows  that  he  was  still  on  friendly 
terms  with  the  President.  His  interlocutor  began  by  ask 
ing  him  if  he  would  consent  to  the  use  of  his  name  as  a 
conservative  candidate  for  the  Presidency  against  Gen 
eral  Grant,  to  which  the  "Illinois  statesman  replied  with 
more  than  usual  emphasis,  'No  sir,  I  would  not. " 

Then  the  following  conversation  ensued: 

1  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  vn,  182-89. 

2  This  interview  was  reprinted  in  the  New  York  Times  of  December  6.  It  is 
corroborated  in  sentiment  by  the  Trumbull  manuscripts  of  that  date,  but  it  was 
probably  not  intended  for  publication.    It  purports  to  be  a  conversation  be 
tween  Trumbull  and  an  ex-Senator. 


370  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Why  not? 

For  many  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  I  am  satisfied  where  I 
am.  I  consider  a  seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  a  posi 
tion  in  which  I  can  be  more  useful  than  in  any  other,  and  I 
believe  it  to  be  as  honorable  as  any  under  the  Government  if  its 
duties  be  efficiently  and  properly  discharged.  In  the  next  place, 
I  do  not  agree  with  the  programme  which  has  been  marked  out 
by  those  who  refuse  to  support  the  candidacy  of  the  President 
for  reelection.  I  am  conscious  of  the  need  for  many  reforms, 
and  I  am  daily  striving  to  accomplish  them.  But  I  do  not 
believe  that  a  revolution  of  parties  would  be  salutary.  I  do  not 
believe  that  either  the  people  of  the  North  or  of  the  South  are 
ready  to  profit  by  such  a  change. 

And  why  not? 

Because  the  people  of  the  South  have  really  accepted  nothing, 
and  are  not  willing  to  cooperate  with  the  Liberals  of  the  North 
in  settling  the  practical  relations  of  society  on  a  sure  and  gen 
erous  basis.  I  know  that  the  South  has  much  to  complain  of. 
But  so  have  the  Liberal  Republicans.  It  is  not  the  rebel  ele 
ment,  perhaps,  but  the  nature  of  things,  that  the  South  should 
not  realize  the  complete  overthrow  of  the  old  order  and  the 
necessity  for  a  complete  change  of  the  domestic  policy.  I 
believe  that  the  defeat  of  General  Grant  would  involve  a  reac 
tion  at  the  South  whose  consequences  would  be  even  worse  than 
the  present  state  of  affairs. 

Don't  you  think  General  Grant  meditates  the  permanent 
usurpation  of  the  Executive  office? 

No,  I  do  not.  My  opinion  is  that  General  Grant  is,  in  the 
main,  a  conservative  man.  He  has  made  mistakes.  But  I  can 
not  say  they  justify  his  removal. 

What  are  your  personal  relations? 

Very  friendly.  I  have  opposed  some  of  his  measures,  but  I 
have  no  personal  feeling,  and,  indeed,  this  is  one  of  the  reasons 
why  it  is  disagreeable  to  have  my  name  mentioned  in  the  con 
nection  you  name. 

The  interview  closed  with  the  writer's  assurance  that 
the  views  of  Senator  Sumner  coincided  with  those  of 
Trumbull.  A  Washington  letter  in  the  Nation  of  Decem 
ber  28  said: 


GRANT'S  ADMINISTRATION  371 

From  what  I  see  and  hear,  the  conviction  is  forced  upon  me 
that  there  will  be  no  lead  given  by  men  like  Trumbull  volun 
tarily.  They  may  be  forced  by  the  Administration  party  into 
opposition,  but  they  will  go  reluctantly  and  timidly. 

Among  the  letters  received  by  Trumbull  at  this  time 
was  the  following  from  a  man  of  high  repute  and  influence 
in  Ohio: 

COLUMBUS,  December  15,  1871. 

You  may  remember  me  sufficiently  to  know  who  I  am  and 
my  position  in  Ohio.  My  special  object  in  this  writing  is  to  con 
gratulate  you  for  your  proper  and  patriotic  position  on  the 
Retrenchment  Resolution.  Messrs.  Morton,  Sherman  et  al,  are 
grievously  mistaken  as  to  the  state  of  public  sentiment  in  regard 
to  the  Administration  and  the  President.  I  am  bold  to  say  that 
outside  of  the  Grand  Army  of  the  Republic  and  the  office 
holders  (an  imperium  in  imperio),  more  than  one  half  of  the 
Republicans  are  intensely  dissatisfied  with  General  Grant.  His 
indecent  interference  in  Missouri  and  Louisiana,  his  disgusting 
nepotism,  his  indefensible  course  in  regard  to  San  Domingo, 
and  his  recent  complimentary  letter  to  Collector  Murphy  have 
produced  the  conviction  that  he  is  intellectually  and  morally 
unqualified  for  his  present  position.  He  will  hear  deep  and 
alarming  thunder  before  the  Kalends  of  November,  1872. 

Go  forward  with  your  associates,  Schurz,  Sumner,  Patterson, 
and  Tip  ton,  in  your  exposure  of  the  faults  and  frauds  of  the 
Administration,  and  the  best  class  of  Republicans  will  honor 
your  magnanimity  and  patriotism.  I  know  General  Grant  per 
sonally.  I  have  not  asked  him  for  any  favor.  As  Senatorial 
Elector  I  traversed  the  state,  and  advocated  the  Republican 
principles  and  policy,  but  I  have  the  pleasant  consciousness 
and  delightful  remembrance  that  I  never  eulogized  General 
Grant  nor  recommended  him  as  suitable  for  the  place.  As  long 
as  he  is  under  the  special  superintendence  of  Morton,  Chandler, 
and  Cameron,  he  must  necessarily  deteriorate,  as  none  of  them 
has  ever  been  suspected  of  having  any  profound  sense  of  right 
or  wrong. 

Confidentially  yours, 

SAM'L  GALLOWAY. 

HON.  LYMAN  TRUMBULL,  U.S.S. 


CHAPTER  XXV 

THE  CINCINNATI    CONVENTION 

THE  Liberal  Republicans  of  Missouri  held  a  state 
convention  at  Jefferson  City,  January  24,  1872.  They 
adopted  a  platform  which  affirmed  the  sovereignty  of 
the  Union,  emancipation,  equality  of  rights,  enfranchise 
ment,  complete  amnesty,  tariff  reform,  civil  service 
reform,  local  self-government,  and  impartial  suffrage. 
They  also  called  a  national  mass  convention  to  meet  at 
Cincinnati  on  the  first  Monday  in  May. 

This  call  was  at  once  endorsed  by  General  J.  D.  Cox, 
George  Hoadley,  Stanley  Matthews,  and  J.  B.  Stallo,  four 
of  the  most  eminent  citizens  of  Ohio,  the  first  of  whom 
had  been  a  member  of  President  Grant's  Cabinet.  Mr. 
Matthews,  in  an  interview,  expressed  the  hope  that  the 
Democrats  would  join  in  nominating  a  candidate  for  the 
presidency  of  the  type  of  Charles  Francis  Adams,  William 
S.  Groesbeck,  Lyman  Trumbull,  or  Salmon  P.  Chase. 

The  movement  spread  like  wildfire.  Groups  of  Repub 
licans,  eminent  in  character  and  in  public  service  in  all 
the  states,  proclaimed  their  adhesion  to  it  and  declared 
their  intention  to  participate  in  the  convention.  It  had 
also  the  active  support  of  the  Springfield  Republican,  the 
Cincinnati  Commercial,  and  the  Chicago  Tribune,  and  the 
sympathy  of  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  the  Nation, 
and  the  New  York  Tribune.  Democratic  sympathy  was 
manifested  early  and  found  expression  in  the  columns 
of  the  Louisville  Courier- Journal,  whose  editor,  Henry 
Watterson,  took  a  keen  interest  in  the  preliminaries  of  the 
Cincinnati  meeting  and  whose  cooperation  was  gladly 


THE  CINCINNATI  CONVENTION  373 

welcomed.  The  New  York  World,  edited  by  Manton 
Marble,  gave  passive  support  to  the  movement  by  advis 
ing  Democrats  to  conform  to  present  facts  and  not  seek 
to  revive  or  sustain  the  dead  issues  of  the  war  and  Recon 
struction. 

Under  date,  New  Orleans,  April  23,  Marble  wrote  to 
Schurz : 

It  is  due  to  you  that  I  should  say,  before  you  go  to  Cincin 
nati,  that  in  my  clear  judgment  the  nomination  of  Charles 
Francis  Adams  would  defeat  the  reelection  of  Grant.  It  has 
always  been  obvious  that  Mr.  Adams  would  be  among  the  best 
of  Presidents.  He  has  been  growing,  during  the  last  few 
months,  to  be  the  best  of  candidates.  I  could  not  name  another 
so  safe  to  win.  Adams  and  Palmer  would  be  a  quite  perfect 
ticket.  —  This  is  founded  on  careful  consideration. 

August  Belmont,  of  New  York,  the  most  influential 
Democrat  in  that  state  not  holding  any  public  office,  took 
an  active  part,  both  by  correspondence  and  by  personal 
solicitation,  in  the  endeavor  to  secure  the'  nomination 
by  the  Cincinnati  Convention  of  a  candidate  whom  the 
Democrats  could  support,  and  to  induce  the  latter  to 
abstain  from  making  a  separate  nomination.  From  Vin- 
cennes,  Indiana,  April  23,  he  wrote  to  Schurz  that,  after 
having  seen  many  prominent  men  of  both  parties,  he  had 
found  the  Cincinnati  movement  even  stronger  with  them, 
and  the  people,  than  he  had  anticipated.  He  added : 

Everybody  looks  for  the  action  of  your  convention,  and  if 
you  make  a  good  national  platform  denouncing  the  abuses  and 
corruption  of  the  Executive,  the  military  despotism  of  the 
South,  the  centralization  of  power  and  the  subordination  of  the 
civil  power  to  the  military  rule,  and  declare  boldly  for  general 
amnesty  and  a  revenue  tariff,  you  will  find  every  Democrat 
throughout  the  land  ready  to  vote  for  your  candidate,  pro 
vided  you  name  one  whom  our  convention  can  endorse.  .  .  . 
I  found  in  the  West  and  in  New  York  an  overwhelming 


374  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

desire  for  Charles  F.  Adams.  Adams  is  the  strongest  and  least 
vulnerable  man;  he  will  draw  more  votes  from  Grant  than  will 
any  other  candidate.  The  whole  Democratic  party  will  follow 
him. 

There  was  a  full  delegation  from  Pennsylvania,  com 
posed  of  honorable  men,  who  were  not  office-seekers.  The 
meeting  which  appointed  them  was  presided  over  by 
Colonel  A.  K.  McClure,  who  announced,  when  taking  the 
chair,  that  inasmuch  as  the  Cincinnati  Convention  was  a 
mass  meeting,  the  persons  attending  it  would  not  be  en 
tangled  in  the  usual  political  machinery.  The  movement 
was  on  the  lines  of  the  Republican  party;  it  was  a  move 
ment  of  Republicans  by  necessity,  who  did  not  mean  to 
be  bound  by  the  Government  party  as  it  then  stood. 
General  William  B.  Thomas  said  that  he  and  other  gen 
tlemen  had  issued  the  call  for  this  meeting  to  send  a  dele 
gation  to  Cincinnati.  He  was  engaged  in  work  looking 
to  the  annihilation  of  the  Republican  party.  He  had 
helped  to  build  up  that  party,  but  now  he  was  free  to  say 
that  it  was  the  most  corrupt  party  on  the  face  of  the 
earth.  He  was  opposed  to  any  candidate  to  be  nominated 
by  the  coming  Philadelphia  Convention;  Grant,  or  any 
other  man.  Colonel  McClure  said  that  the  plain  English 
of  the  whole  thing  was  rebellion  against  the  party  and  the 
bringing  of  it  to  the  dignity  of  a  revolution.  Five  years 
ago  there  might  have  been  a  necessity  for  the  exercise  of 
military  power  in  the  South,  but  not  now.  The  South,  to 
his  mind,  had  been  more  desolated  since  the  close  of  the 
war  than  before. 

The  Pennsylvanians  had  fifty-six  votes  in  the  conven 
tion.  On  the  first  roll-call  they  cast  all  of  them  for  Gov 
ernor  A.  G.  Curtin.  On  all  subsequent  ones  they  gave 
a  plurality  for  Adams.1 

1  Chicago  Times,  April  22. 


THE  CINCINNATI  CONVENTION  375 

Numerous  letters  reached  Trumbull  before  the  call  for 
the  Cincinnati  Convention  was  issued  suggesting  that  he 
be  a  candidate  for  the  presidency  in  opposition  to  Grant. 
One  of  these,  dated  Roslyn,  Long  Island,  November  30, 
1871,  was  from  John  H.  Bryant,  brother  of  William  Cul- 
len  Bryant,  who  said  that  both  himself  and  his  brother 
desired  to  see  him  elected  President  and  that  if  he  should 
be  a  candidate  he  could  count  on  the  support  of  the  Even 
ing  Post. 

Silas  L.  Bryan,  of  Salem,  Illinois,  the  father  of  William 
Jennings  Bryan,  wrote  under  date,  December  19,  1871, 
that  he  considered  Trumbull  the  Providential  man  for  the 
present  crisis  and  that  if  he  would  consent  to  be  a  candi 
date  for  the  highest  office  he  (Bryan)  would  take  steps  to 
promote  that  desirable  end.  To  this  letter  Trumbull 
replied  that  to  be  talked  about  for  the  presidency  im 
paired  the  influence  he  might  otherwise  have  to  promote 
the  reforms  which  he  labored  to  bring  about.  He  did  not, 
however,  refuse  Judge  Bryan's  offer  of  assistance. 

Joseph  Brown,  Mayor  of  St.  Louis,  wrote  that  he  would 
rather  see  Trumbull  nominated  for  the  presidency  than 
any  other  man  of  either  party.  To  this  letter  Trumbull 
made  a  reply  similar  to  that  given  to  Judge  Bryan. 

Walter  B.  Scates,  ex-judge  of  the  supreme  court  of 
Illinois,  wrote:  "You  saved  the  Republican  party  in  the 
impeachment  trial  and  I  now  hope  you  may  save  the 
country  from  corruption,  pillage,  high  tax,  class  legisla 
tion,  and  central  despotism." 

Jesse  K.  Dubois,  auditor  of  Illinois,  perhaps  the  most 
sagacious  and  experienced  politician  in  the  state,  wrote, 
after  signing  the  call  for  the  Cincinnati  Convention: 
"With  you  as  our  candidate  I  would  wager  we  carry  this 
state  anywhere  from  30,000  to  50,000  majority  as  against 
Grant." 


376  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

On  February  23,  Trumbull  made  a  speech  in  the  Sen 
ate  defending  the  Missouri  Convention's  platform  against 
the  objections  of  Senator  Morton,  who  had  stigmatized  it 
as  a  Democratic  movement,  because  that  party  in  Con 
necticut  had  endorsed  it  in  their  state  convention.  In  this 
speech  Trumbull  took  up  each  resolution  in  the  platform 
and  showed  that  it  was  either  in  accord  with  Republican 
doctrine  as  affirmed  in  the  national  platforms  of  the 
party,  or  had  been  commended  by  President  Grant  in  offi 
cial  messages  to  Congress.  On  the  subject  of  civil  service 
reform,  to  promote  which  Grant  had  appointed  the 
George  William  Curtis  Commission,  he  said: 

The  great  evil  of  our  civil  service  system  grows  out  of  the 
manner  of  making  appointments  and  renewals  and  the  use 
which  is  made  of  the  patronage,  treating  it  as  mere  party  spoils. 
Often  the  patronage  is  used  for  purposes  not  rising  to  the  dig 
nity  of  even  party  purposes,  but  by  certain  individuals  for 
individual  and  personal  ends.  It  would  be  bad  enough  if  the 
patronage  were  used  as  mere  spoils  for  party,  but  it  is  infinitely 
worse  than  that  under  our  present  system. 

The  Senator  from  Indiana,  in  his  speech  the  other  day,  under 
took  to  create  the  impression  that  I  was  opposed  to  civil  ser 
vice  reform.  Why,  sir,  I  offered  the  very  bill  in  this  body 
which  became  a  law  under  which  the  Civil  Service  Commis 
sion  was  organized.  I  introduced  bills  here  years  ago  in  favor 
of  a  reform  in  the  civil  service  and  especially  to  break  up  the 
running  of  members  of  Congress  to  the  departments  begging 
for  offices.  In  my  judgment  there  is  nothing  more  disreput 
able,  or  which  interferes  more  with  the  proper  discharge  of 
public  duty,  than  this  hanging  around  the  skirts  of  power  beg 
ging  for  offices  for  friends. 

The  growth  of  the  Cincinnati  movement  was  signalized 
by  a  meeting  at  the  Cooper  Union  in  New  York  City  on 
the  evening  of  April  12,  of  which  the  Nation  said:  "We 
believe  that  it  was  the  most  densely  packed  meeting 
which  ever  met  there.  All  approach  within  fifty  yards  of 


THE  CINCINNATI  CONVENTION  377 

the  entrance  was  next  to  impossible  in  the  early  part  of 
the  evening,  so  great  was  the  crowd  in  the  street."  Both 
Trumbull  and  Schurz  spoke  here  to  enthusiastic  hearers. 
Among  the  letters  received  by  Trumbull  prior  to  the 
convention  the  most  thoughtful  and  weighty  was  the  fol 
lowing  written  by  Governor  John  M.  Palmer,  of  Illinois : 

SPRINGFIELD,  April  13,  1872. 

I  have  felt  considerable  apprehension  in  regard  to  the  Cin 
cinnati  movement  for  the  reason  that  I  have  doubted  the  ability 
of  men  of  the  right  stamp  to  control  the  action  of  the  proposed 
convention,  and  I  have  believed  that  it  would  be  better 
to  endure  the  abuses  and  weaknesses  and  follies  of  Grant's 
Administration  for  another  four  years  than  to  crystallize  them 
by  the  mistake  of  making  a  bad  nomination  of  his  successor. 
Grant  is  an  evil  that  we  can  endure  if  we  retain  the  right  to 
point  out  his  faults  in  principle  and  practice,  but  if  some  ancient 
Federalist  should  be  elected  to  succeed  him  what  is  now  usurpa 
tion  would  be  accepted  by  the  people  as  the  proper  theory  of 
the  government.  But  if  the  Cincinnati  Convention  nominates 
a  statesman  I  will  support  him,  and  you  if  you  are  selected  as 

the  candidate.  ,  _.    ^, 

JOHN  M.  PALMER. 

Among  the  names  mentioned  as  desirable  candidates 
that  of  Charles  Francis  Adams  was  the  most  prominent. 
After  him  came  Lyman  Trumbull,  Horace  Greeley,  David 
Davis,  B.  Gratz  Brown,  and  Andrew  G.  Curtin.  Adams 
had  been  Minister  to  Great  Britain  during  the  war,  and 
was  now  one  of  the  arbitrators  of  the  Geneva  Tribunal 
under  the  Alabama  Claims  Treaty.  He  had  written  a 
letter  to  David  A.  Wells  which  showed  that  he  did  not 
desire  the  nomination,  was  perfectly  indifferent  to  it,  but 
that  if  it  were  given  to  him  without  pledges  of  any  kind 
he  would  not  refuse.  He  said  among  other  things : 

If  the  call  upon  me  were  an  unequivocal  one  based  upon 
confidence  in  my  character  earned  in  public  life,  and  a  belief 
that  I  would  carry  out  in  practice  the  principles  I  professed, 


378  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

then  indeed  would  come  a  test  of  my  courage  in  an  emergency; 
but  if  I  am  to  be  negotiated  for,  and  have  assurances  given  that 
I  am  honest,  you  will  be  so  kind  as  to  draw  me  out  of  that 
crowd. 

This  phrase  was  interpreted  erroneously  by  some  as  an 
expression  of  contempt  for  "that  crowd,"  but,  of  course, 
it  was  not  so  intended.  The  letter  was  not  written  for 
publication.  Not  only  did  Mr.  Adams  not  seek  the  nomi 
nation,  but  his  son,  Charles  Francis,  Jr.,  refused  to  go 
to  the  convention,  or  to  invite  any  of  his  Boston  friends 
to  go. 

Greeley  was  an  anti-slavery  leader,  founder  of  the  New 
York  Tribune,  book-writer,  lecturer,  foremost  journalist 
in  the  country,  distinguished  both  for  intellectual  power 
and  personal  eccentricity.  Davis  was  a  member  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  by  Lincoln's  appoint 
ment.  Brown  was  governor  of  Missouri,  and  next  to 
Schurz  the  most  prominent  leader  of  the  Liberal  move 
ment.  Curtin  had  been  the  war  governor  of  Pennsylvania 
and  was  a  man  of  high  ability  and  unblemished  character. 
The  name  of  Sumner  had  been  frequently  mentioned  as 
one  suitable  for  the  presidency,  but  he  had  not  yet  given 
his  adhesion  to  the  Liberal  movement. 

The  New  York  Herald  of  May  1  tells  what  I  thought  of 
the  outlook  when  I  first  arrived  in  Cincinnati,  thus : 

CINCINNATI,  April  27,  1872.  —  Mr.  Horace  White,  who 
arrived  this  morning,  says  that  the  Liberal  movement  has  as  yet 
only  penetrated  the  crust  of  public  sentiment  and  that  the 
masses  of  the  people  are  waiting  in  a  half -curious  way  to  see  what 
will  be  done  here  before  they  will  make  up  their  minds. 

Trumbull  did  not  authorize  the  presentation  of  his  name 
to  the  convention  until  one  week  before  its  meeting. 
Then  a  qualified  acquiescence  came  in  a  letter  to  myself, 
dated  Washington,  April  24,  saying: 


THE  CINCINNATI  CONVENTION  379 

I  do  not  think  I  ought  to  be  nominated  unless  there  is  a 
decided  feeling  among  those  who  assemble,  and  are  outside  of 
rings  and  bargains,  that  I  would  be  stronger  than  any  one  else. 
Unless  this  is  the  feeling,  I  think  it  would  not  be  wise  to  present 
my  name  at  all.  .  .  .  D.  A.  Wells  has  enclosed  me  a  letter  writ 
ten  on  the  20th  by  John  Van  Buren,  Governor  Hoffman's  secre 
tary,  which  he  thinks  undoubtedly  represents  the  feelings  of  the 
Hoffman  wing  of  the  New  York  Democracy.  In  this  letter  Van 
Buren  says  the  convention  must  not  touch  the  question  of  free 
trade,  that  the  persons  pushing  this  question  are  not  unani 
mous  on  the  question,  and  that  a  non-committal  resolution 
would  do  harm  in  both  directions.  Grosvenor  is  very  stren 
uous  about  having  such  a  resolution  as  will  commit  the  con 
vention  distinctly  to  revenue  reform,  and  I  fear  will  be  a  little 
unreasonable  about  it.  I  had  thought  that  a  resolution  might 
be  adopted  which  would  assert  the  principle  without  being 
offensive  to  anybody;  perhaps  something  like  the  resolution 
adopted  by  the  last  Illinois  State  Convention.  Free-traders 
and  protectionists  differ  more  about  the  application  of  princi 
ples  than  the  principles  themselves  in  their  efforts.  Wells  and 
other  reformers  of  the  East  will  be  reasonable  on  this  question. 
Van  Buren  further  says  in  his  letter:  "One  thing  rely  upon  — 
you  need  do  nothing  at  Cincinnati  except  with  reference  to 
drawing  Republicans  into  the  movement.  Disregard  the  Demo 
crats.  The  movement  of  that  side  will  take  care  of  itself. 
There  will  be  no  cheating  nor  holding  back  on  their  side. 
They  will  go  over  in  bulk  and  with  a  will." 

My  reply  to  this  letter,  written  immediately  after  the 
adjournment  of  the  convention,  was  the  following: 

My  judgment  was  from  the  beginning  of  our  arrival  here  that 
you  could  not  be  nominated,  but  I  did  not  tell  anybody  so.  Dr. 
Jayne  and  Governor  Koerner  thought  you  could  be;  and  their 
judgment,  I  thought,  should  be  set  before  mine.  So  I  held  my 
tongue  and  did  what  I  could.  If  I  had  taken  the  responsibility 
of  withdrawing  your  name  as  suggested  by  your  letter,  I  should 
never  have  had  any  standing  in  Illinois  again  —  certainly  not 
among  your  friends. 

As  this  convention  did  not  consist  of  delegates  chosen 


380  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

by  primary  meetings,  any  person  of  Republican  anteced 
ents  or  attachments  was  permitted  to  attend  and  take 
part  in  it.  To  bring  order  out  of  chaos  it  was  necessary 
for  the  men  of  each  state  to  come  together  and  choose  a 
number  corresponding  to  its  population  to  cast  its  votes 
on  all  questions  arising,  including  the  nomination  of  can 
didates.  In  states  which  presented  more  than  one  candi 
date,  as  in  Illinois,  there  was  some  difficulty  in  making 
the  proper  division  as  between  Davis  and  Trumbull;  but 
all  such  troubles  were  adjusted  before  the  hour  for  assem 
bling  arrived.  The  streets  of  Cincinnati  had  never  beheld 
a  more  orderly,  single-minded,  public-spirited  crowd.  At 
least  four  fifths  had  come  together  at  their  own  expense 
for  no  other  purpose  than  the  general  good.  There  was, 
however,  a  small  minority  of  office-seekers  among  them. 
The  movement  in  its  inception  was  altogether  free  from 
that  class,  but  when  it  began  to  assume  formidable  pro 
portions  and  seemed  not  unlikely  to  sweep  the  country, 
it  attracted  a  certain  number  of  professional  politicians, 
including  a  few  estrays  from  the  South. 

The  office-seeking  fraternity  were  mostly  supporters 
of  Davis,  whose  appearance  as  a  candidate  for  the  presi 
dency  was  extremely  offensive  to  the  original  promoters 
of  the  movement.  As  a  judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  his 
incursion  into  the  field  of  politics,  unheralded,  but  not 
unprecedented,  was  an  indecorum.  Moreover,  his  sup 
porters  had  not  been  early  movers  in  the  ranks  of  reform, 
and  their  sincerity  was  doubted.  They  were  extremely 
active,  however,  after  the  movement  had  gained  head 
way,  and  they  were  able  to  divide  the  vote  of  Illinois  into 
two  equal  parts  (21  to  21),  so  that  Trumbull's  strength 
in  the  convention  was'seriously  impaired.  Davis's  chances 
were  early  demolished  by  the  editorial  fraternity,  who, 
at  a  dinner  at  Murat  Halstead's  house,  resolved  that  they 


THE  CINCINNATI  CONVENTION  381 

would  not  support  him  if  nominated,  and  caused  that 
fact  to  be  made  known. 

Greeley's  candidacy  had  not  been  taken  seriously  by 
the  editors  at  Halstead's  dinner-party.  As  an  individual 
he  was  generally  liked  by  them  and  his  ability  and  honesty 
were  held  in  the  highest  esteem;  but  he  was  looked  upon 
as  too  eccentric  and  picturesque  to  find  much  support 
in  such  a  sober-minded  convention  as  ours.  Adams  and 
Trumbull  were  the  only  men  supposed  by  us  to  be  within 
the  sphere  of  nomination,  and  the  chances  of  Adams  were 
deemed  the  better  of  the  two.  We  had  yet  to  learn  that 
there  are  occasions  and  crowds  where  personal  oddity  and 
a  flash  of  genius  under  an  old  white  hat  are  more  potent 
than  high  ancestry  or  approved  statesmanship,  or  both 
those  qualifications  joined  together. 

Before  nominations  were  made,  a  platform  was  to  be 
framed  and  adopted.  There  were  three  main  issues  to  be 
considered:  Universal  amnesty,  civil  service  reform,  and 
tariff  reform.  On  the  first  and  second  there  was  no  differ 
ence  of  opinion.  Without  them  the  Cincinnati  movement 
would  never  have  taken  place;  the  convention  would 
never  have  been  called.  As  to  the  third,  there  was  a  dif 
ference  of  opinion  which  divided  the  convention  and  the 
Committee  on  Resolutions  in  the  middle,  and  it  soon 
became  known  that  "there  was  no  common  ground  on 
which  the  protectionists  and  revenue  reformers  could 
stand."  So  wrote  E.  L.  Godkin  from  the  convention  hall 
to  the  Nation.  He  continued: 

The  Committee  on  Resolutions,  after  sitting  up  a  whole 
night,  were  compelled  to  accept  the  compromise  which  he 
[Greeley]  proposed  —  the  reference  of  the  whole  matter  to  the 
people  in  the  congressional  districts.  It  is  right  to  add  that 
the  sentiment  of  the  convention  was  overwhelmingly  in  favor 
of  this  course.  There  is  a  touch  of  absurdity  about  it,  it  is  true, 
but  it  is  at  least  frank  and  honest,  and  at  all  events  nothing 


382  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

else  was  possible.  Even  such  outspoken  free-traders  as  Judge 
Hoadley,  of  this  city,  were  compelled  to  concur  in  this  disposi 
tion  of  the  question. 

As  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  and 
a  free-trader,  I  can  confirm  all  that  Godkin  wrote,  and 
add  that  the  committee  considered  the  expediency  of 
reporting  to  the  convention  their  inability  to  agree  and 
asking  to  be  discharged.  This  plan  was  rejected  lest  it 
should  cause  a  bolting  movement,  on  an  issue  which  was 
rated  only  third  in  importance  among  those  which  had 
brought  us  together.  It  was  decided  that  tariff  reform 
could  wait,  while  the  pacification  of  the  South  and  the 
reform  of  the  civil  service  could  not. 

Thursday  night,  May  2, 1  had  gone  to  bed  at  the  Bur- 
net  House  when  I  was  aroused  by  a  loud  knock  on  my 
door  and  a  voice  outside  which  I  recognized  as  that  of 
Grosvenor  exclaiming:  "Get  up!  Blair  and  Brown  are 
here  from  St.  Louis."  Without  waiting  for  an  answer  he 
went  on  knocking  at  other  doors  in  the  corridor  and  giv 
ing  the  same  warning,  but  no  other  explanation.  I  arose, 
dressed  myself,  and  went  down  to  the  rotunda  of  the 
hotel,  where  I  found  some  of  the  supporters  of  Trumbull 
and  of  Adams  who  were  trying  to  discover  why  the  arrival 
of  Frank  Blair  and  Gratz  Brown  should  produce  a 
commotion  in  a  convention  of  more  than  seven  hundred, 
of  which  Blair  and  Brown  were  not  members.  Blair 
was  then  the  Democratic  Senator  from  Missouri.  The 
two  newcomers  were  not  visible.  They  had  obtained  a 
room  and  had  called  into  it  some  of  the  Missouri  delega 
tion  and  would  not  admit  any  uninvited  persons.  Pres 
ently  Grosvenor  returned  and  told  us  that  Brown  in 
tended  to  withdraw  as  a  candidate  for  the  presidency 
and  turn  his  forces  over  to  Greeley,  and  himself  take  the 
Vice-Presidency.  Grosvenor  considered  this  a  dangerous 


THE  CINCINNATI  CONVENTION 


combination  and  said  that  steps  should  be  taken  to 
checkmate  it  at  once. 

The  Adams  and  Trumbull  men  here  collected  remained 
till  about  two  o'clock  trying  to  learn  more  about  the 
expected  coup,  but  as  nothing  further  could  be  obtained 
they  retired  one  by  one  to  uneasy  slumber.  Grosvenor 
maintained  to  the  last  that  great  mischief  was  impending, 
but  could  not  suggest  any  way  to  meet  it. 

On  the  following  day  voting  began,  and  the  first  roll- 
call  showed  Adams  in  the  lead  with  205  votes;  Greeley 
had  147,  Trumbull  110,  Brown  95,  Davis  92i,  Curtin  62, 
Chase  2i.  Carl  Schurz,  who  was  permanent  chairman 
of  the  convention  and  a  supporter  of  Adams,  then  rose 
and  with  some  signs  of  embarrassment  said  that  a  gentle 
man  who  had  received  a  large  number  of  votes  desired 
to  make  a  statement,  whereupon  he  invited  the  Hon.  B. 
Gratz  Brown  to  come  to  the  platform.  Brown  advanced 
to  the  front,  and  after  thanking  his  friends  for  their  sup 
port  said  that  he  had  decided  to  withdraw  his  name  and 
that  he  desired  the  nomination  of  Horace  Greeley  as  the 
man  most  likely  to  win  in  the  coming  election.  There  was 
great  applause  among  the  supporters  of  Greeley,  but  the 
immediate  result  did  not  answer  their  expectations.  Brown 
could  not  control  even  the  Missouri  delegation.  The  first 
vote  of  the  Missouri  men  had  been  30  for  Brown.  The 
second  was,  Trumbull  16,  Greeley  10,  Adams  4. 

All  the  votes  are  shown  in  the  following  table: 


Roll-Call 

Adams 

Greeley 

Trumbull 

Davis 

Chase 

Brown 

Curtin 

First. 

205 

147 

110 

92i 

2i 

95 

62 

Second  

243 

245 

148 

81 

2 

Third  . 

264 

258 

156 

44 

Fourth  

279 

251 

141 

51 

Fifth           

309 

258 

91 

30 

25 

Sixth  

324 

332 

19 

6 

32 

384  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Although  Greeley 's  plurality  on  the  sixth  roll-call  was 
small,  his  gain  over  the  fifth  was  large,  being  74  votes, 
that  of  Adams  being  only  15.  This  was  a  signal  to  all  who 
wished  to  be  on  the  winning  side  to  take  shelter  under 
the  old  white  hat.  Changes  were  made  before  the  result 
was  announced  which  gave  Greeley  482  to  187  for  Adams. 
Then  Greeley  was  declared  nominated.  The  nomination 
of  Gratz  Brown  for  Vice-President  followed  without 
much  opposition. 

The  supporters  of  Adams  and  of  Trumbull  were 
stunned.  The  first  impulse  of  their  leaders,  and  espe 
cially  of  Schurz,  was  to  put  on  sackcloth,  and  go  into 
retirement.  Prompt  decision,  however,  was  necessary  to 
the  editors  of  daily  newspapers.  Other  persons  could  go 
home  and  take  days  or  weeks  to  think  the  matter  over, 
but  those  who,  at  Halstead's  table,  had  decided  against 
David  Davis,  must  needs  make  another  prompt  decision 
before  the  next  paper  went  to  press.  They  decided  to 
support  Greeley,  because  they  had  honestly  led  their 
readers  to  an  honest  belief  that  the  Cincinnati  move 
ment  was  for  the  best  interests  of  the  Republic;  and  they 
deemed  it  unfair  to  turn  against  it  on  account  of  per 
sonal  vexation  against  a  man  whose  candidacy  had  been 
tolerated  through  the  whole  proceedings.  That  Greeley 
was  an  unbalanced  man  we  all  knew.  That  he  was  lia 
ble  to  go  off  at  a  tangent  and  that  his  self-esteem  and 
self-confidence  might  put  him  beyond  the  reach  of  good 
counsel  in  affairs  of  great  pith  and  moment,  was  the  un 
expressed  thought  of  most  of  us.  But  we  knew  that  his 
aims  were  patriotic,  and  we  reflected  that  some  risks  are 
taken  at  every  presidential  election.  Greeley  had  not  yet 
been  proved  an  unsafe  President,  and  that  was  more 
than  could  be  said  for  Grant.  In  fact,  Grant's  second 
term  proved  to  be  worse  than  his  first. 


THE  CINCINNATI  CONVENTION  385 

Schurz  was  more  distressed  by  the  "Gratz  Brown 
trick,"  as  it  was  commonly  called,  than  by  anything  else. 
This  had  the  appearance  of  a  brazen  political  swap  exe 
cuted  in  the  light  of  day,  by  which  the  presidency  and 
the  vice-presidency  were  disposed  of  as  so  much  mer 
chandise.  He  did  not,  however,  in  his  thoughts  connect 
Greeley  with  the  trade.  It  was  physically  impossible 
that  the  latter  could  have  been  a  party  to  it,  if  there 
was  a  trade.  Nevertheless  he  considered  the  German  vote 
lost  beyond  recall  by  the  bad  look  of  it.1  My  own  belief 
is  that  Blair  and  Brown  were  jealous  of  Schurz's  power 
in  Missouri;  that  they  feared  he  would  become  omnipo 
tent  there,  dominating  both  parties,  if  Adams  should  be 
elected  President;  and  that  the  only  way  to  head  him  off 
was  to  beat  Adams.  They  chose  Greeley  for  this  purpose, 
not  because  they  had  any  bargain  with,  or  fondness  for, 
him,  but  because  he  was  the  next  strongest  man  in  the 
convention. 

The  engineers  of  the  Liberal  Republican  movement 
went  their  several  ways.  Those  who  held  tariff  reform 
of  more  importance  than  all  other  issues  abjured  Greeley 
at  once.  E.  L.  Godkin  and  William  Cullen  Bryant  de 
clared  war  against  him  because  they  considered  him  dan 
gerous  and  unfit.  The  following  correspondence  which 
took  place  between  Bryant  and  Trumbull  was  illustra 
tive  of  the  feelings  of  many  others : 

1  Frank  W.  Bird,  of  Boston,  who  went  to  Cincinnati  as  an  anti-Adams  dele 
gate,  wrote  to  Charles  Sumner  on  May  7:  "Don't  believe  a  word  about  the 
trade,  in  any  discreditable  sense,  between  Blair  and  Brown  on  the  one  part  and 
the  Greeley  men  on  the  other.  Undoubtedly  Blair  wanted  to  head  off  Schurz, 
and  equally  truly  an  arrangement  was  made,  or  an  understanding  reached,  on 
Thursday  night,  in  a  certain  contingency  to  unite  a  portion  of  the  Brown  and 
Greeley  forces:  but,  except  perhaps  in  the  motives  of  the  leading  negotiators  on 
one  side,  there  was  nothing  unusual  in  the  affair,  nothing  that  is  not  usually  — 
indeed,  almost  necessarily  —  done  in  such  conventions;  nothing  that  was  not 
contemplated  and  even  proposed  by  the  Adams  men."  (Sumner  papers  in 
Harvard  University  Library.) 


386  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

THE  EVENING  POST, 

41  NASSAU  STREET,  COR.  LIBERTY, 

NEW  YORK,  May  8th,  1872. 

MY  DEAR  SIR, 

It  has  been  said  that  you  will  support  the  nomination  of  Mr. 
Greeley  for  President.  I  have  no  right  to  speak  of  any  course 
which  you  may  take  in  politics  in  any  but  respectful  terms,  but 
I  may  perhaps  take  the  liberty  of  saying  that  if  you  give  that 
man  your  countenance,  some  of  your  best  friends  here  will 
deeply  regret  it.  We  who  know  Mr.  Greeley  know  that  his 
administration,  should  he  be  elected,  cannot  be  otherwise  than 
shamefully  corrupt.  His  associates  are  of  the  worst  sort  and 
the  worst  abuses  of  the  present  Administration  are  likely  to 
be  even  caricatured  under  his.  His  election  would  be  a  severe 
blow  to  the  cause  of  revenue  reform.  The  cause  of  civil  service 
reform  would  be  hopeless  with  him  for  President,  for  Reuben 
E.  Fenton,  his  guide  and  counselor,  and  the  other  wretches  by 
whom  Greeley  is  surrounded,  will  never  give  up  the  patronage 
by  which  they  expect  to  hold  their  power.  As  to  other  public 
measures  there  is  no  abuse  or  extravagance  into  which  that 
man,  through  the  infirmity  of  his  judgment,  may  not  be 
betrayed.  It  is  wonderful  how  little,  in  some  of  his  vagaries, 
the  scruples  which  would  influence  other  men  of  no  exemplary 
integrity,  restrain  him.  But  I  need  not  dwell  upon  these  mat 
ters  —  they  are  all  set  forth  in  the  Evening  Post  which  you 
sometimes  see.  What  I  have  written,  is  written  in  the  most 
profound  respect  for  your  public  character,  and  because  of  that 
respect.  If  you  conclude  to  support  Mr.  Greeley,  I  shall,  of 
course,  infer  that  you  do  so  because  you  do  not  know  him. 
Yours  truly, 

HON.  L.  TRUMBULL.  W.  C.  BRYANT. 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE  CHAMBER, 
WASHINGTON,  May  10,  1872. 

WM.  C.  BRYANT,  ESQ., 

MY  DEAR  SIR,  —  Your  kind  and  frank  letter  is  before  me.  I 
wish  I  could  see  something  better  than  to  support  Mr.  Greeley, 
but  I  do  not.  Personally,  I  know  but  little  of  him,  but  in  com 
mon  with  most  people  supposed  he  was  an  honest  but  confiding 
man,  who  was  often  imposed  upon  by  those  about  him.  This 
would  be  a  great  fault  in  a  President,  I  admit,  but  with  proper 


THE  CINCINNATI  CONVENTION  387 

surroundings  could  be  guarded  against,  and  almost  anything 
would  be  an  improvement  on  what  we  have.  One  of  the  great 
est  evils  of  our  time  is  party  despotism  and  intolerance.  Gree- 
ley's  nomination  is  a  bomb-shell  which  seems  likely  to  blow  up 
both  parties.  This  will  be  an  immense  gain.  Most  of  the  cor 
ruptions  in  government  are  made  possible  through  party  tyr 
anny.  Members  of  the  Senate  are  daily  coerced  into  voting 
contrary  to  their  convictions  through  party  pressure.  A  notable 
instance  of  this  was  the  vote  on  the  impeachment  of  Johnson, 
and  matters  in  this  respect  have  not  improved  since.  If  by 
Greeley's  election  we  could  break  up  the  present  corrupt  organ 
izations,  it  would  enable  the  people  at  the  end  of  four  years  to 
elect  a  President  with  a  view  to  his  fitness  instead  of  having 
one  put  upon  them  by  a  vote  of  political  bummers  acting  in 
the  name  of  party. 

Having  favored  the  Cincinnati  movement  and  Greeley  hav 
ing  received  the  nomination,  I  see  no  course  left  but  to  try  to 
elect  him,  and  endeavor  to  surround  him,  as  far  as  possible, 
with  honest  men.  Greeley  had  a  good  deal  of  strength  among 
the  people  and  was  strong  in'tjie  convention  outside  of  bargain 
or  arrangement.  Many  voted  for  him  as  their  first  choice,  and 
in  Illinois  I  feel  confident  he  is  a  stronger  candidate  than  Adams 

would  have  been. 

LYMAN  TRUMBULL. 

Sumner,  although  urged  by  many  of  his  warmest 
friends  both  before  and  after  the  convention,  including 
Frank  Bird,  Samuel  Bowles,  and  Greeley  himself 
(through  Whitelaw  Reid),  to  declare  his  position,  did 
not  break  silence  until  May  31,  when  he  made  his  great 
speech  against  Grant.  The  speech  remains  a  true  cata 
logue  of  the  shortcomings  of  Grant  as  a  civil  administra 
tor  up  to  that  time.  All  his  sins  of  omission  and  of  com 
mission  were  there  set  forth  in  orderly  array,  together 
with  the  proofs.  Sumner  thus  spared  future  historians  a 
deal  of  trouble  in  searching  the  records,  but  the  speech 
was  not  very  effective  in  the  way  of  changing  votes. 
Sumner  sometimes  mistook  himself  for  a  modern  Cicero 


388  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

impeaching  Verres.  He  piled  up  the  agony  in  the  fash 
ion  customary  in  the  pleadings  of  the  ancient  forum.  He 
overlooked  the  signal  services  rendered  by  Grant  before 
he  held  any  civil  office.  He  did  not  make  allowance  for 
the  transition  of  a  tanner's  clerk,  earning  fifty  dollars  a 
month  and  having  a  family  to  support,  first  to  the  com 
mand  of  half  a  million  soldiers  in  war  time,  and  then  to 
the  presidency  of  the  United  States  in  time  of  peace,  all 
within  the  period  of  eight  years.  The  mistakes  naturally 
arising  from  such  crude  beginnings,  when  meeting  gigantic 
responsibilities  in  quick  succession,  ought  to  have  excited 
pathos  as  well  as  censure.  By  giving  due  consideration 
to  Grant's  whole  career,  he  would  have  secured  a  better 
hearing  for  the  part  of  it  which  he  wished  to  impress  upon 
the  public  mind. 

Even  now  Sumner  did  not  advise  anybody  to  vote  for 
Greeley.  His  omission  to  do  so  was  at  once  construed  as 
an  argument  favorable  to  Grant.  It  was  said  that  the 
dangers  involved  in  Greeley 's  eccentricities  were  so  much 
greater  than  anything  that  Grant  had  done,  or  could  do, 
that  Grant's  worst  enemy  (Sumner)  would  not  advise 
people  to  vote  for  him.  Not  until  the  29th  of  July  did  the 
Massachusetts  Senator  publicly  speak  for  Greeley,  and 
then  only  in  a  letter  to  some  colored  voters  who  had  asked 
his  advice.  It  was  then  too  late  to  exert  much  influence. 
It  is  doubtful  if  even  the  colored  men  who  had  sought 
his  advice  gave  any  heed  to  it.  Probably  the  reason  why 
Sumner  did  not  speak  earlier  was  that  he  hesitated  to 
break  from  his  abolitionist  friends,  Garrison,  Phillips,  and 
others,  who  had  besought  him  not  to  join  the  Democrats. 
When  he  did  finally  join  the  forces  supporting  Greeley, 
his  old  friend  Garrison  turned  upon  him  and  chastised 
him  severely  in  a  series  of  open  letters,  which  Sumner 
declined  to  read. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 

THE  GREELEY  CAMPAIGN 

MY  own  feelings  immediately  after  the  nomination 
were  set  forth  in  a  telegram  to  the  Chicago  Tribune  pub 
lished  in  its  issue  of  May  4.  The  chief  part  was  in  these 
words : 

CINCINNATI,  May  3.  —  The  nomination  of  Mr.  Greeley  was 
accomplished  by  the  people  against  the  judgment  and  strenu 
ous  efforts  of  politicians,  using  the  latter  word  in  its  larger 
and  higher  sense.  The  Gratz  Brown  performance  has  given  the 
whole  affair  the  appearance  of  a  put-up  job,  but  it  was  merely 
a  lucky  guess.  The  Blairs  and  Browns  do  not  like  Schurz.  To 
defeat  a  candidate  who  was  likely  to  be  on  confidential  terms 
with  Schurz,  as  either  Adams  or  Trumbull  would  have  been, 
was  the  thing  nearest  to  their  hearts,  and  for  this  purpose 
Brown  made  his  appearance  here.  His  speech  in  the  Conven 
tion  fell  like  dish-water  on  the  whole  assemblage,  and,  being 
followed  by  the  transfer  of  the  Missouri  votes  to  Trumbull, 
instead  of  Greeley,  showed  that  he  had  no  influence  in  his  own 
delegation.  The  changes  from  Brown  to  Greeley  were  few  and 
far  between,  and  in  a  short  time  the  convention  only  remem 
bered  that  Brown  had  been  a  candidate  once  and  was  so  no 
longer.  But  the  personal  popularity  of  Greeley  was  more  than 
a  match  for  the  intellectual  strength  of  Trumbull  and  the  moral 
gravity  of  Adams.  He  was  stealing  votes  from  both  of  them  all 
the  time.  When  the  Illinois  delegation  at  last  perceived  that 
the  heart  of  the  convention  was  carrying  away  the  head,  and 
retired  for  consultation,  the  surprising  fact  was  developed  that 
fifteen  of  their  own  number  preferred  Greeley  to  any  candidate 
not  from  their  own  state.  The  supporters  of  Adams,  while  en 
tertaining  the  most  cordial  feeling  for  the  friends  of  Trumbull, 
think  that  if  the  latter  had  come  over  to  Adams's  corner  the 
result  would  have  been  different.  I  do  not  think  so.  If  the 
Illinois  vote  could  have  been  cast  solid  for  Adams  at  an  earlier 


390  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

stage,  the  result  might  have  been  different:  but  there  was  no 
time  when  Adams  could  have  got  more  than  the  twenty-seven 
votes  which  were  finally  cast  for  him.  The  contingency  of  hav 
ing  to  divide  between  Adams  and  Greeley  had  never  been  con 
sidered,  and,  therefore,  no  time  had  been  allowed  to  compare 
views.  The  vote  of  the  state  being  thus  divided,  its  weight  was 
lost  for  any  purpose  of  influencing  other  votes.  Then  gush  and 
hurrah  swept  everything  down,  and,  almost  before  a  vote  of 
Illinois  had  been  recorded  by  the  secretary,  the  dispatches 
came  rushing  to  the  telegraph  instruments  that  Greeley  was 
nominated.  For  a  moment,  the  wiser  heads  in  the  convention 
were  stunned,  though  everybody  tried  to  look  perfectly  con 
tented.  Of  all  the  things  that  could  possibly  happen,  this  was 
the  one  thing  which  everybody  supposed  could  not  happen. 
Not  even  the  Greeley  men  themselves  thought  it  could  happen. 
The  only  able  politician  who  seemed  to  be  really  for  Greeley 
was  Waldo  Hutchins,  of  New  York,  and  even  his  sincerity  was 
questioned  by  Greeley's  backbone  friends  as  long  as  the  Davis 
movement  was  regarded  as  still  alive. 

How  the  news  was  received  by  Trumbull  was  told  by 
the  New  York  Herald's  Washington  dispatch  of  May  3: 

.  .  .  The  scene  in  the  Senate,  when  the  news  was  received, 
was  one  of  complacent  dignity,  such  as  only  the  members  of 
that  body  could  arrange,  even  if  they  had  studied  to  prepare 
themselves  for  an  art  tableau.  Mr.  Fenton  was  the  recipient 
of  the  dispatches,  and  his  chair  was  consequently  surrounded 
by  a  crowd  of  the  less  dignified  Senators,  who  could  not  wait 
to  have  the  telegrams  passed  around.  Trumbull  was  the  most 
undisturbed  of  all  those  on  the  floor.  His  equanimity  aston 
ished  his  friends  as  well  as  the  numerous  strangers  in  the  gal 
leries,  who  watched  closely  for  indications  of  excitement  in  his 
parchment-like  face.  In  truth,  he  seemed  to  get  the  news 
rather  by  some  occult  process  of  induction,  if  he  got  it  at  all, 
than  by  the  course  usual  to  ordinary  men.  Other  members 
smiled,  made  comments,  exchanged  opinions  and  preserved 
their  dignity  with  customary  success;  but  he  alone  asserted  an 
immobility  of  demeanor  that  will  last  for  all  time,  in  the  mem 
ory  of  its  witnesses,  as  a  remarkable  instance  of  self-possession. 
At  last,  when  every  one  else  had  delivered  himself  of  some 


THE  GREELEY  CAMPAIGN  391 

criticism  he  remarked  to  those  in  his  immediate  vicinity:  "If 
the  country  can  stand  the  first  outburst  of  mirth  the  nomina 
tion  will  call  forth,  it  may  prove  a  strong  ticket." 

Carl  Schurz  was  slow  in  reaching  a  decision  to  support 
the  ticket.  His  first  endeavor  was  to  induce  Greeley,  in 
a  friendly  way,  to  decline  the  nomination,  by  showing  him 
the  sombre  aspects  of  the  campaign  ahead.  In  a  letter 
dated  May  18,  he  told  Greeley  that  the  dissatisfaction 
of  an  influential  part  of  the  Liberal  Republican  forces 
was  such  that  a  meeting  had  been  called  to  consider  the 
question  of  putting  another  ticket  in  the  field  before 
the  Democrats  should  hold  their  convention.  Other  dis 
couraging  features  were  presented  and  the  letter  con 
cluded  with  these  words : 

I  have,  from  the  beginning,  made  it  a  point  to  tell  you  with 
entire  candor  how  I  feel  and  what  I  think  about  this  business, 
and  now  if  the  developments  of  the  campaign  should  be  such  as 
to  disappoint  your  hopes,  it  shall  not  be  my  fault  if  you  are 
deceived  about  the  real  state  of  things. 

To  this  Greeley  replied  on  the  20th,  saying  that  his 
advices  \  warranted  him  in  predicting  that  New  York 
would  give  50,000  majority  for  the  Cincinnati  ticket,  and 
that  New  England  and  the  South  would  be  nearly  solid 
for  it,  while  in  Pennsylvania  and  the  Northwest  the 
chances  were  at  least  even.  He  ended  by  saying:  "I  shall 
accept  unconditionally." 

The  meeting  foreshadowed  in  Schurz's  letter  to  Greeley 
took  place  at  the  Fifth  Avenue  Hotel  on  the  20th  of  June. 
It  was  composed  mainly  of  persons  who  had  participated 
in  the  Cincinnati  Convention  and  had  been  greatly  dis 
appointed  by  Mr.  Greeley 's  nomination.  William  Cullen 
Bryant  presided,  but  fell  asleep  in  the  chair  soon  after  the 
proceedings  began.  The  first  speech  was  made  by  Trum- 
bull,  who  said  that  his  mind  was  made  up  to  support  the 


392  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Cincinnati  ticket.  He  thought  that  Greeley  had  gained 
strength  during  the  first  month  of  the  campaign  and  that 
the  chances  of  his  election  were  good.  He  could  see  no 
reason  for  nominating  another  ticket.  That  would  sim 
ply  be  playing  into  the  hands  of  the  supporters  of 
Grant. 

Schurz's  position,  as  reported  by  the  Nation,  was  this: 

That  he,  more  than  any  other  man,  was  chagrined  by  the 
result  of  Cincinnati;  that  he  does  not  consider  Mr.  Greeley  a 
reformer,  and  has  no  expectations  of  any  reforms  at  his  hands, 
and  will  say  so  on  the  stump;  that  he  believes  him  "to  be  sur 
rounded  by  bad  men";  that  he  (Mr.  Schurz),  however,  is  so 
satisfied  of  the  necessity  of  defeating  Grant  and  dissolving  exist 
ing  party  organizations,  that  he  is  ready  to  use  any  instrument 
for  the  purpose,  and  will,  therefore,  support  Greeley  in  the 
modified  and  guarded  manner  indicated  above.  He  looks  for 
ward,  with  a  hopefulness  bordering  on  enthusiasm,  to  the  good 
things  which  will  grow  out  of  the  confusion  following  on  Gree- 
ley's  election,  and  is  deeply  touched  by  the  Southern  eagerness 
for  Greeley. 

A  private  letter  from  E.  L.  Godkin  to  Schurz,  dated 
Lenox,  Massachusetts,  June  28,  gives  reasons  for  depre 
cating  the  course  that  the  latter  had  decided  to  take  in 
the  campaign. 

He  has  considered  Schurz's  words  about  Greeley;  would  be 
most  glad  could  he  see  any  way  to  join  in  supporting  Greeley, 
Schurz  being  the  one  man  in  American  politics  who  inspires 
Godkin  with  some  hope  concerning  them.  He  maturely  consid 
ered  what  he  could  and  would  do  when  Greeley  was  first  nomi 
nated.  In  view  of  his  own  share  in  bringing  public  feeling  to 
the  point  of  creating  the  convention,  he  would  have  stood  by 
Greeley  if  possible;  saw  no  chance  to  do  so  and  sees  none  now; 
is  satisfied  he  can  have  nothing  to  do  with  Greeley.  If  Greeley 
gave  pledges,  and  broke  them,  "as  I  believe  he  would,"  it  would 
be  no  consolation  to  Godkin  that  an  opposition  would  thereby 
be  raised  up.  He  went  through  all  this  with  Grant,  who  gave 


THE  GREELEY  CAMPAIGN  393 

far  better  guarantees  than  Greeley  offers,  "and  he  made  fine 
promises  and  broke  them,  and  good  appointments  and  reversed 
them,  and  I  have  in  consequence  been  three  years  in  opposi 
tion."  Cannot  afford  to  repeat  this.  "Greeley  would  have  to 
change  his  whole  nature,  at  the  age  of  62,  in  order  not  to  deceive 
and  betray  you,"  and  when  he  has  done  so  it  will  be  too  late 
to  atone  for  having  backed  him  by  turning  against  him,  which 
would  then  merely  discredit  one's  judgment,  and  invite  sus 
picion  of  some  personal  disappointment.  Moreover,  the  small 
band  of  political  reformers  will  have  fallen  into  disrepute  and 
become  ridiculous  and  the  country  will  be  worse  off  than  before. 
Feels  that  Schurz  is  sacrificing  the  future  in  taking  Greeley  on 
any  terms.  .  .  . 

Parke  Godwin  was  even  more  bitter  against  Greeley. 
He  wrote  to  Schurz  under  date  May  28 : 

"...  I  have  so  strong  a  sense  of  Greeley 's  utter  unfitness  for 
the  presidency  that  I  cannot  well  express  it.  The  man  is  a 
charlatan  from  top  to  bottom,  and  the  smallest  kind  of  a 
charlatan,  —  for  no  other  motive  than  a  wreak  and  puerile 
vanity.  His  success  in  politics  would  be  the  success  of  whoever 
is  most  wrong  in  theory  and  most  corrupt  in  practice."  All  the 
most  corrupt  spoilsmen  of  either  side  are  either  with  him  now 
or  preparing  to  go  to  him.  It  is  the  first  of  duties  to  expose  him 
and  his  factitious  reputation.  Grant  and  his  crew  are  bad,  — 
but  hardly  so  bad  as  Greeley  and  his  would  be.  Besides,  Grant, 
though  in  very  bad  hands,  has  his  clutches  full:  Greeley 's  set 
would  be  newcomers. 

The  regular  Republican  Convention  met  at  Philadel 
phia,  June  5,  and  nominated  General  Grant  for  President 
by  unanimous  vote.  The  names  of  Henry  Wilson,  Schuy- 
ler  Colfax,  and  several  others  were  presented  for  Vice- 
President.  On  the  first  roll-call  Wilson  had  361  votes 
and  Colfax  306,  and  there  were  66  for  other  candidates. 
Before  the  result  was  announced,  38  votes  from  Southern 
States  were  changed  to  Wilson,  giving  him  399,  a  major 
ity  of  the  whole  number  cast.  This  decision  was  brought 
about  by  the  wish  of  Grant  himself,  communicated  to 


394  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

General  Grenville  M.  Dodge  before  the  convention  met. 
Grant  had  no  liking  for  Coif  ax.1 

The  platform  of  the  convention  laid  stress  on  the  im 
perative  duty  of  "suppression  of  violent  and  treasonable 
organizations  in  certain  lately  rebellious  regions  and  for 
the  protection  of  the  ballot-box."  This  meant  the  stern 
execution  of  the  Ku-Klux  Law,  under  suspension  of  the 
writ  of  habeas  corpus,  which  was  already  in  progress.  The 
remainder  of  the  platform  was  either  "pointing  with 
pride"  at  past  achievements,  or  clap-trap  of  various 
kinds,  including  a  promise  to  take  good  care  of  capital 
and  labor,  so  as  to  secure  "the  largest  opportunities  and 
a  just  share  of  the  mutual  profits  of  these  two  great  ser 
vants  of  civilization." 

The  Democratic  National  Convention  met  at  Balti 
more,  July  9,  and  adopted  both  the  platform  and  the  can 
didates  of  the  Cincinnati  Convention.  This  involved  a 
complete  reversal  of  the  party's  principles  as  declared  in 
its  last  previous  platform,  but  it  was  not  inconsistent  with 
inexorable  facts.  There  was  nothing  else  to  be  done  unless 
the  party  was  determined  still  to  battle  against  the  result 
of  the  Civil  War.  It  was  inevitable,  however,  that  there 
should  be  a  remnant  of  the  party  that  would  never  vote  for 
Greeley  —  the  man  who  above  all  others  had  gored  them 
most  savagely  in  the  fights  of  a  quarter  of  a  century.  The 
dissentients  called  and  held  a  convention  at  Louisville, 
September  3,  where  they  nominated  Charles  O'Conor 
of  New  York  for  President  and  John  Quincy  Adams  for 
Vice-President,  both  of  whom  declined.  Other  attempts 
to  put  a  third  ticket  in  the  field  came  to  nothing.  The 
recalcitrants  either  voted  for  Grant  or  abstained  from 
voting  altogether. 

Trumbull  took  an  active  part  in  the  campaign,  speak- 

1  This  fact  was  given  to  me  by  General  Dodge,  in  writing. 


THE  GREELEY  CAMPAIGN  395 

ing  to  large  crowds  and  almost  incessantly  in  Maine,  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Michigan,  Indiana,  and  Illi 
nois.  His  first  speech  was  made  at  Springfield,  Illinois, 
June  26,  a  synopsis  of  which  will  serve  to  indicate  the 
views  which  he  advocated. 

He  said  that  he  was  glad  to  explain  to  Illinoisans  the  posi 
tion  he  had  felt  it  his  duty  to  take  on  many  points.  It  was  now 
more  than  seventeen  years  that  he  had  represented  the  state  in 
Washington.  In  that  time  the  principles  on  which  the  Republi 
can  party  was  formed  had  all  been  settled.  Nothing  remained 
but  the  machinery,  which  had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  those 
who  sought  to  use  it  for  merely  selfish  ends.  During  his  service 
he  had  sometimes  not  acted  according  to  the  views  of  all  his 
constituents,  but  he  had  not  failed  to  follow  his  own  sense  of 
duty  and  right.  Within  the  last  ten  years  many  abuses  had 
crept  into  the  Government  and  numerous  defalcations  had 
occurred,  perhaps  the  most  noted  being  that  of  Hodge,  pay 
master,  in  the  office  of  the  Paymaster-General,  "whose  defal 
cations,  occurring  right  under  the  eye  of  the  Government, 
amounted  to  more  than  $400,000."  An  investigating  com 
mittee  had  reported  to  a  previous  Congress  great  abuses  in  the 
New  York  Custom-House  —  bribery  and  demoralization.  At 
the  beginning  of  the  recent  session  he  [Trumbull]  had  intro 
duced  a  resolution  for  a  joint  committee  of  investigation,  with 
power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers;  introduced  it  in  good 
faith  to  unearth  frauds,  if  existent,  and  to  correct  them,  with 
out  design  of  injuring  the  party.  "  I  was  simple-minded  enough 
to  believe  that  the  Republican  party,  .  .  .  with  which  I  had 
been  identified  for  so  many  years,  would  be  lifted  in  public 
estimation  ...  if  it  had  the  virtue  and  the  honesty  to  expose, 
even  among  its  own  members,  wrong,  corruptions,  and  fraud  if 
fraud  existed,  and  to  apply  the  proper  corrective.  And  I  was 
very  much  astonished  when  that  proposition  was  met  by  gen 
tlemen  in  the  Senate  who  constitute  what,  for  brevity's  sake,  I 
may  denominate  a  Senatorial  Ring,  denouncing  me  as  unfaith 
ful  to  the  Republican  'party  and  as  throwing  dirt  upon  it 
by  offering  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  conduct  of  public 
officers." 

The  public  indignation  aroused  by  this  forced  the  Senatorial 


396  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Ring  to  action.  "A  party  caucus  of  Republican  Senators  was 
called,  and  a  scheme  devised  to  change  the  character  of  the 
resolution,  and  to  organize  and  pack  the  committee,  which, 
instead  of  going  forth  to  uncover  and  expose  corruption,  should 
go  forth  to  conceal  and  cover  it  up.  The  proposition  for  the 
joint  committee  of  the  two  houses,  with  power  to  send  for  per 
sons  and  papers,  was  voted  down,  and  in  its  place  a  resolution 
was  passed  creating  a  committee  of  the  Senate  alone.  The 
members  of  the  committee  were  selected  in  a  party  caucus,  and 
not  a  single  Republican  Senator  who  had  originally  favored  the 
investigation  was  placed  upon  the  committee.  This  was  con 
trary  to  parliamentary  law,  and  contrary  to  the  plainest  prin 
ciples  of  common  sense,  if  the  object  was  to  discover  abuses, 
and  contrary  to  that  ordinary  rule  which  says  that  a  child  must 
not  be  put  to  a  nurse  who  cares  not  for  it.  This  investigation 
was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  parties  to  be  investigated.  ..." 
Even  this  committee,  going  to  New  York,  could  not,  however, 
shut  their  eyes  to  the  enormous  abuses  there.  But  they  did 
give  public  notice  that  any  merchants  who  had  paid  bribe 
money  to  customs  officials  would  be  prosecuted  to  the  extent  of 
the  law,  thereby  securing  the  non-appearance  of  any  such  mer 
chant  as  a  witness.  They  acted  as  if  sent  to  investigate  mer 
chants,  not  officials.  .  .  .  And  the  Senate  Ring  would  allow  no 
measure  to  be  considered  tending  to  rectify  these  abuses,  want 
ing  to  keep  the  spoils  to  carry  next  fall's  elections.  A  bill  from 
the  House  was  referred  to  the  Judiciary  committee,  which  had 
a  majority  of  Ring  members,  —  a  bill  to  inaugurate  reforms 
and  to  protect  merchants  from  plunder.  Although  it  was  before 
the  committee  two  months  it  was  never  reported  to  the  Senate. 
"  I  made  two  motions  in  the  Senate  to  have  the  committee  dis 
charged  and  to  bring  the  bill  before  the  Senate,  that  it  might 
receive  its  attention,  but  they  were  voted  down  under  party 
drill." 

"Let  me  tell  you  of  another  committee  of  investigation, 
raised  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  packed  also  by  an 
obsequious  and  partisan  Speaker,  —  a  committee,  a  majority 
of  which  consisted  of  the  friends  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
whose  conduct  was  about  to  be  investigated.  I  want  to  tell  you 
what  that  committee  did,  and  I  think  you  will  be  astonished 
when  I  state  the  fact  that  a  committee  of  members  of  the  House 


THE  GREELEY  CAMPAIGN  397 

of  Representatives  could  have  been  found,  who  were  so  blinded 
by  party  zeal,  so  full  of  bigotry  or  cowardice  that  they  could 
not  see,  or  were  afraid  to  expose,  violations  of  the  law  on  the 
part  of  political  associates.  This  committee  was  raised  on  the 
motion  of  Governor  Blair,  of  Michigan,  a  high-minded,  inde 
pendent,  and  able  Republican.  ...  At  his  [Blair's]  instance,  a 
committee  was  raised  to  inquire  into  certain  transactions  in  the 
Navy  Department,  presided  over  by  Secretary  Robeson.  .  .  . 
Among  many  of  the  things  that  the  committee  was  instructed 
to  inquire  into  .  .  .  was  a  claim  for  building  certain  vessels  for 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  during  the  war.  I  have 
the  precise  figures  here,  giving  the  exact  amounts  which  the 
Government  contracted  to  pay  for  the  construction  of  the 
three  vessels,  Tecumseh,  Mahopac,  and  Manhattan.  The  con 
tract  was  made  in  1862,  and  the  Government  agreed  to  pay 
a  contractor  of  the  name  of  Secor  $1,380,000  for  the  construc 
tion  of  these  three  vessels.  After  the  contract  was  made,  the 
Government  desired  some  changes  in  the  plans  of  the  vessels, 
and  a  board  of  naval  officers  was  appointed  to  superintend 
them  and  to  certify  bills  for  extra  work,  which  they  did  to 
the  amount  of  more  than  $500,000.  The  vessels  were  furnished, 
the  contract  price  paid  —  the  sum  due  for  the  extra  work  was 
paid,  and  it  was  all  settled  and  closed  in  the  Navy  Department 
in  1865.  But  these  contractors,  who  had  received  more  than 
$1,900,000  for  building  the  vessels  and  the  extra  work,  came  to 
Congress  by  petition,  and  complained  that  they  still  had  not  re 
ceived  as  much  as  they  ought,  because  they  said  that  they  were 
delayed  in  their  contracts  by  the  action  of  the  Government; 
that  while  thus  delayed  the  price  of  labor  and  of  materials 
advanced,  and  they  had  met  with  great  loss,  and  they,  there 
fore,  asked  Congress  to  allow  them  something  more.  Congress, 
in  1867,  passed  a  law  directing  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to 
look  into  this  matter  and  report  to  the  next  session.  The  Sec 
retary  appointed  a  board  of  Naval  officers,  who  made  the  inves 
tigation,  and  reported  to  Congress  that  these  Secors  ought  to 
be  allowed  $115,000  more  (I  use  round  numbers)— $115,000 
in  addition  to  what  they  had  already  received,  and  put  into  the 
law  these  words,  "which  shall  be  in  full  discharge  of  all  claims 
against  the  United  States  on  account  of  the  vessels  upon  which 
the  Board  made  the  allowance  as  per  this  report."  Now,  do 


398  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

any  of  you,  does  any  lawyer,  .  .  .  know  how  to  write  a  stronger 
clause  than  that  to  end  this  claim?  If  you  do,  I  do  not.  .  .  . 
The  Secors,  in  1868,  received  the  $115,000  and  gave  their 
receipt.  .  .  .  Would  you  believe  it  possible  that  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  would,  after  that,  pay  anything  more?  .  .  .  Mr. 
Robeson,  in  1870,  ...  on  his  own  motion,  without  any  act  of 
Congress  authorizing  it,  proceeds  to  reinvestigate  this  claim, 
and  without  coming  to  Congress  at  all  pays  over  to  these  gen 
tlemen  $93,000  more.  Well,  that  is  not  the  worst  of  it.  He 
might  just  as  well  have  paid  them  $93,000,000.  The  Congress 
of  the  United  States  never  appropriated  any  money  to  pay 
this  $93,000,  but  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  took  the  money 
appropriated  for  other  purposes  and  other  years  and  paid  it 
out  of  that.  This  is  bad  enough.  .  .  .  But  when  this  packed 
committee  came  to  examine  this  transaction,  a  majority  of  its 
members  reported  that  the  transactions  only  involved  a  mere 
difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  construction  of  the  law,  and,  in 
their  opinion,  the  Secretary  had  construed  it  rightly.  And  Mr. 
Robeson,  instead  of  being  rebuked,  is  commended  by  the  com 
mittee,  and  is  continued  in  office.  It  is  due  to  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  —  Governor  Blair,  of  Michigan,  and  one  of  his 
associates  —  the  committee  consisted  of  five  members  —  to 
say  that  they  dissented  from  the  majority  report,  and  held  that 
the  transaction  was  not  only  without  authority  of  law,  but  in 
direct  violation  of  it.  ... 

"I  was  never  a  party  man  to  the  extent  of  being  willing  to 
serve  the  party  against  my  country  and  if,  to-day,  I  am  acting 
with  the  Liberal  Republican  party,  if  I  have  denounced  these 
transactions  at  the  hazard  of  being  myself  denounced,  it  was 
done  in  good  faith  on  my  part,  for  the  purpose  of  correcting 
abuses,  and  appealing  from  a  party  tyranny  established  by  a 
Senatorial  Ring  to  the  honest,  intelligent,  upright  citizens  of 
the  country,  who  are  bound  by  no  such  shackles  as  will  com 
pel  them  to  cover  up  fraud  and  iniquity  in  any  party.  .  .  ." 

He  mentioned  the  encroachments  of  the  Federal  Govern 
ment,  as  in  the  attempt  to  destroy  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of 
habeas  corpus  in  the  last  session  of  Congress,  as  a  bill  virtually 
placing  the  elections  of  the  Southern  States  under  the  direction 
of  the  President.  If  the  people  have  become  so  far  indifferent 
to  their  rights  as  to  permit  the  President  to  suspend  the  writ 


THE  GREELEY  CAMPAIGN  399 

of  habeas  corpus  at  will,  and  to  control  and  supervise  their  elec 
tions,  their  liberties  are  gone,  and  "they  have  only  to  wait  until 
a  man  sufficiently  ambitious  reaches  the  Presidency,  for  him  to 
grasp  and  maintain  absolute  powers." 

The  speech  was  two  hours  long,  and  concluded  with 
this  tribute  to  Greeley: 

.  .  .  Mr.  Greeley  [he  said]  is  a  man  of  the  highest  character 
and  intelligence.  No  man  in  the  land  is  better  acquainted  with 
the  public  men  of  the  country  than  he.  He  is  a  man  of  purity 
of  character,  of  strict  honesty,  who  would  not  look  upon 
corruption  and  official  delinquency  with  the  least  degree  of 
allowance.  You  may  rely  upon  that  and  upon  his  bringing 
about  him  the  ablest  men  of  the  land  to  form  a  strong  and  able 
Administration,  because  he  knows  who  the  able  men  are,  and 
could  have  no  other  motive  than  to  make  his  Administration  a 
success,  as  he  will  not  seek  a  reelection.  I  am  not  in  the  habit 
of  saying  much  about  individuals,  but  I  think  I  may  say  to  you 
that  you  may  trust  Horace  Greeley  for  an  honest  administra 
tion  of  the  Government,  and  that  is  what  the  people  of  the 
country  want.  You  may  trust  him  above  almost  all  other  men 
in  this  land  for  bringing  about  that  state  of  good  feeling  between 
the  North  and  the  South,  so  essential  to  the  peace  and  pros 
perity  of  the  nation. 

The  campaign  started  with  considerable  eclat  among 
the  ranks  of  Greeley 's  supporters  and  corresponding 
depression  on  the  other  side.  Carl  Schurz,  who  took  the 
laboring  oar,  at  first  with  reluctance  bordering  on  gloom, 
gathered  confidence  as  he  progressed  in  his  stumping  tour. 
Enthusiasm  for  the  old  white  hat  seemed  to  be  no  fig 
ment  of  imagination,  but  a  living  reality.  All  eyes  were 
fixed  upon  North  Carolina  which  had  an  election  for 
state  officers  on  the  1st  of  August,  and  which  the  Liberals 
expected  to  win.  The  early  returns  seemed  to  justify 
their  confidence,  but  there  was  a  change  when  the  western 
mountain  districts  were  heard  from.  The  supporters  of 


400  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Grant  carried  the  state  by  about  2000  majority.  This 
wound  was  not  so  deep  as  a  well  nor  so  wide  as  a  church 
door,  but  it  answered  one  purpose.  It  ended  the  "old 
white  hat"  enthusiasm  and  turned  attention  to  the  more 
sober  and  solid  aspects  of  the  campaign.  That  Greeley 
was  an  unbalanced  character,  that  he  was  lacking  in 
steadiness,  in  mental  equipoise  and  ability  to  look  at 
both  sides  of  any  question  where  his  feelings  were  strongly 
enlisted,  it  was  easy  to  show  by  many  examples  in  his 
brilliant  career.  His  occasional  controversies  with  Lin 
coln  during  the  war,  in  which  he  was  invariably  worsted, 
were  now  reproduced  with  effect  by  the  orators  on  the 
Grant  side,  and  the  old  white  hat  and  coat  and  the 
Flintwinch  neck-tie  were  savagely  pictured  by  Tom 
Nast  in  Harper's  Weekly.  There  were  satirical  persons 
who  said  that  Greeley  took  as  much  pains  to  make  him 
self  a  harlequin  as  another  might  take  to  make  himself 
a  dandy. 

The  attacks  were  not  without  effect  upon  people  who 
had  never  seen  Greeley  face  to  face.  To  his  immediate 
friends  in  New  York  it  seemed  necessary  that  he  should 
show  himself  to  the  public  so  that  people  might  know  he 
was  a  man  of  solid  parts,  of  statesmanlike  proportions 
and  brain  power.  He  was  persuaded  to  make  a  series 
of  speeches  in  Indiana,  Ohio,  and  Pennsylvania  in  the 
month  of  September,  as  those  states  were  likely  to  have  a 
decisive  influence  on  the  country  in  their  local  elections, 
which  took  place  in  October.  Accordingly  he  took  the 
stump,  beginning  at  Jeffersonville,  Indiana,  and  moving 
eastward.  His  speeches  surprised  both  friends  and  ene 
mies  by  their  high  tone,  argumentative  force,  good  temper, 
and  versatility  and  vigor  of  expression.  The  main  point 
which  he  sought  to  enforce  was  the  need  of  restored  peace 
and  brotherhood  in  all  the  land.  No  pleading  could  be 


THE  GREELEY  CAMPAIGN  401 

more  persuasive  or  more  touching.  No  doubt  can  exist  of 
the  sincerity  with  which  it  was  uttered. 

It  was  somewhat  droll  that  in  the  last  speech  of  the 
series  he  was  confronted  by  a  speaker  on  the  Grant  side 
at  Easton,  Pennsylvania,  September  28,  who  predicted 
that  if  Greeley  were  elected  all  the  furnace  fires  in  the 
Lehigh  Valley  would  be  put  out  and  their  working-people 
thrown  upon  the  almshouses.  This  to  the  stoutest  cham 
pion  of  the  protective  tariff  then  living!  He  was  not, 
however,  struck  dumb  by  the  prospect  of  the  early 
impoverishment  of  the  iron  workers.  He  said: 

A  recent  speaker  of  the  opposition  has  asserted  that  if  I  were 
made  President  all  the  furnace  fires  in  the  Lehigh  Valley  would 
presently  be  put  out.  This  seems  incredible.  All  men  know  I 
am  a  protectionist;  but  that  I  would  not  veto  any  bill  fairly 
passed  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  modifying  or 
changing  the  tariff  is  certainly  true.  I  do  not  believe  in  govern 
ment  by  selfish  rings,  but  I  believe  just  as  little  in  government 
by  the  one-man  power.  I  don't  believe  in  government  by 
vetoes.  The  veto  power  of  the  President  is  not  given  him  to 
enable  him  to  reject  every  bill  for  which  he  would  have  refused 
to  vote  if  a  member  of  Congress,  but  only  to  be  employed  in 
certain  great  emergencies  where  corruption  or  recklessness  has 
passed  a  measure  through  Congress  which  would  not  stand 
the  test  of  inquiry.  I  tell  you,  friends,  I  believe  in  legislation 
by  Congress,  not  by  Presidents,  and  I  should  myself  approve 
and  sign  a  bill  which  had  a  fair  majority  in  Congress,  although 
in  my  judgment  it  was  not  accordant  with  public  policy  — 
with  the  wisest  policy. 

Although  Greeley 's  stumping  tour  raised  him  in  the 
public  estimation,  it  is  doubtful  if  it  gained  him  any  votes. 
It  was  now  too  late.  People's  minds  were  made  up  and 
nothing  could  change  them,  not  even  the  Credit-Mobilier 
scandal.  General  Grant  was  not  concerned  in  this  scan 
dal,  but  a  number  of  his  most  distinguished  supporters, 
the  very  pillars  of  the  Republican  party,  beginning  with 


402  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

Vice-President  Colfax,  were  named  as  guilty  of  taking 
bribes  to  influence  their  votes  in  Congress  for  the  Union 
Pacific  Railroad.  This  accusation  was  not  made  public 
until  September,  and  then  by  accident.  Most  of  the  per 
sons  accused  made  denial,  and  since  no  investigation 
could  be  had  until  the  next  session  of  Congress  (a  month 
later  than  the  election),  nobody  was  bound  to  give  cre 
dence  to  an  unproved  charge.  The  general  answer  of  the 
supporters  of  Grant  was  that  they  would  not  withhold 
their  votes  from  him  even  if  the  charge  were  true.  Nor 
could  they  be  blamed  for  so  saying.  If  the  persons 
accused  were  really  guilty,  they  would  be  punished  in  due 
time,  or  at  all  events  exposed,  and  exposure  would  itself 
be  punishment.  It  is  needless  to  go  into  the  details  of  the 
Credit-Mobilier  scandal  here.  It  was  investigated  by  an 
able  and  impartial  committee  of  the  House,  and  all  the 
guilty  ones  were  visited  with  such  punishment  as  Con 
gress  could  legally  inflict. 

Of  the  three  October  states,  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio 
gave  large  Republican  majorities  and  Indiana  a  small 
majority  for  Hendricks  (Democrat)  for  governor.  This 
was  decisive  of  the  general  result  in  November.  Greeley 
and  Brown  were  overwhelmingly  defeated.  The  only 
states  that  gave  them  majorities  were  Georgia,  Kentucky, 
Maryland,  Missouri,  Tennessee,  and  Texas,  having  alto 
gether  66  electoral  votes.  The  others  gave  Grant  and 
Wilson  a  total  of  272  electoral  votes.  The  state  of  New 
York,  which  Greeley,  in  his  letter  to  Schurz,  had  claimed 
by  50,000,  gave  53,000  majority  against  him. 

I  have  always  held  the  opinion  that  either  Adams  or 
Trumbull  could  have  been  elected  if  nominated  at  Cincin 
nati.  I  think  also  that  Adams  was  the  stronger  of  the 
two,  because  he  had  incurred  no  personal  ill-will  during 
the  twelve  years  of  war  and  Reconstruction  and  because 


THE  GREELEY  CAMPAIGN  403 

the  minds  of  the  Democratic  leaders  who  had  encouraged 
the  Liberal  movement  were  eagerly  expecting  him.  There 
would  have  been  no  bolting  movement  in  that  quarter. 
The  Germans  also  were  enthusiastic  for  Adams,  and 
although  they  would  have  supported  Trumbull  willingly, 
there  would  have  been  perhaps  a  trifle  less  of  cordiality 
for  him.  Neither  of  the  two  was  gifted  with  personal 
"magnetism,"  but  either  of  them  had  as  much  of  that 
quality  as  Grant  had,  or  as  the  public  then  desired.  The 
voters  were  not  then  in  search  of  the  sympathetic  virtues. 
There  was  a  yearning  for  some  cold-blooded,  masterful 
man  to  go  through  the  temple  of  freedom  with  a  scourge 
of  small  cords  driving  out  the  grafters  and  money 
changers.  Adams  was  qualified  for  this  role.  He  was 
also  the  man  of  whom  the  Republican  leaders  had  the 
gravest  fears  as  an  opposing  candidate. 

The  campaign  and  its  result  killed  poor  Greeley.  The 
election  took  place  on  the  5th  of  November.  On  the  10th 
he  wrote  a  letter  of  two  lines  marked  "private  forever" 
to  Carl  Schurz,  saying: 

I  wish  I  could  say  with  what  an  agony  of  emotion  I  sub 
scribe  myself,  gratefully  yours,  Horace  Greeley. 

He  then  took  to  his  bed  and  his  friends  became  alarmed. 
Frequent  bulletins  were  published  in  the  Tribune  show 
ing  that  he  was  a  victim  of  insomnia,  from  which,  the 
paper  said,  he  had  been  a  sufferer,  more  or  less,  at  former 
periods  of  his  life.  He  died  on  the  29th.  His  wife  had 
died  one  month  earlier,  October  30.  History  says  that  he 
died  of  a  broken  heart.1 

1  John  Bigelow's  Diary,  under  date  Nov.  28,  1872,  contains  the  following 
entry: 

"Greeley  is  now  in  a  madhouse,  and  before  morning  will  probably  be 
dead  —  so  Swinton  tells  me  to-day;  and  Reid,  whom  I  saw  to-day,  confirms 
these  apprehensions."  Retrospections  of  an  Active  Life,  v,  91. 


404  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

That  Greeley  had  been  eager  for  public  office  from  an 
early  period  was  shown  by  his  famous  letter  withdrawing 
himself  as  junior  partner  from  the  firm  of  Seward,  Weed, 
and  Greeley.  When  the  Cincinnati  nomination  came  to 
him  his  fondest  dreams  seemed  to  be  on  the  eve  of  fulfill 
ment.  Now  all  such  dreams  had  vanished,  a  political 
party  of  noble  aspirations  had  foundered  on  him  as  the 
hidden  rock,  his  self-esteem  had  received  an  annihilating 
blow,  and  his  beloved  Tribune,  the  labor  of  his  lifetime, 
was  supposed  to  be  ruined  pecuniarily.  Whatever  his 
faults  may  have  been,  he  received  his  punishment  for 
them  in  this  world.  He  was  only  sixty-two  years  of  age, 
of  sound  constitution  and  good  habits,  and  had  never 
used  liquor  or  tobacco.  He  ought  to,  and  probably 
would,  have  lived  twenty  years  longer  if  he  had  put  away 
ambition  and  contented  himself  with  the  repute  and 
influence  he  had  fairly  earned.  He  was  the  most  influ 
ential  editor  of  his  time  and  country,  but  as  a  political 
writer  E.  L.  Godkin  was  his  superior,  and  in  fact  Godkin, 
in  the  columns  of  the  Nation,  contributed  more  than 
any  other  writer,  perhaps  more  than  any  other  person, 
to  his  overthrow. 

The  state  election  of  Louisiana  in  1872  had  resulted  in 
a  disputed  return  for  governor  and  legislature.  One  set  of 
returns  showed  a  majority  for  John  McEnery,  the  con 
servative  candidate.  Another  set  showed  a  majority  for 
William  P.  Kellogg,  Republican.  The  sitting  governor, 
Warmoth,  controlled  the  returning  board  and  he  favored 
McEnery.  A  former  returning  board  headed  by  one 
Lynch  had  been  dissolved  by  an  act  of  the  legislature.  To 
this  defunct  board  the  supporters  of  Kellogg  appealed. 
The  Lynch  Board,  without  any  actual  returns  before 
them,  declared  Kellogg  elected.  They  then  procured  an  or- 


THE  GREELEY  CAMPAIGN  405 

der  from  Judge  Durell,  of  the  United  States  Circuit  Court 
at  New  Orleans,  to  the  United  States  Marshal,  Packard, 
who  had  a  small  military  force  at  his  command,  to  seize 
the  State  House.  This  was  done  and  the  act  was  approved 
by  President  Grant.  An  appeal  to  him  from  the  better 
class  of  citizens  of  New  Orleans  was  rejected.  The  excite 
ment  in  Congress  growing  out  of  this  usurpation  was 
intense,  even  among  Republicans.  The  Senate  Committee 
on  Privileges  and  Elections  was  ordered  to  make  an  inves 
tigation,  which  it  did,  and  it  reported,  through  Senator 
Carpenter  on  the  20th  of  February,  that  the  action  of 
Judge  Durell  was  illegal  and  that  all  steps  taken  in  pur 
suance  of  it  were  void.  It  recommended  a  new  election 
and  reported  a  bill  for  holding  it;  but  Senator  Morton, 
who  made  a  minority  report,  prevented  it  from  coming 
to  a  vote.  Trumbull,  who  was  also  a  member  of  the 
committee,  made  a  report  more  drastic  than  that  of  Car 
penter  and  supported  his  own  view  by  a  speech  delivered 
on  the  15th  of  February. 

Here  you  have  [he  said]  an  order  sent  from  the  city  of  Wash 
ington  on  the  3d  day  of  December,  which  was  before  Judge 
Durell  issued  his  order  to  seize  the  State  House  and  organize 
a  legislature,  and  directing  that  nobody  should  take  part  in  the 
organization  except  such  persons  as  were  returned  as  members 
by  what  was  known  as  the  Lynch  Board,  a  board  which  the 
committee,  in  their  report  drawn  by  the  Senator  from  Wiscon 
sin,  say  had  been  abolished  by  an  act  of  the  legislature,  and 
had  not  a  single  official  return  before  it.  It  undertook  to  can 
vass  returns  without  having  any  returns  to  canvass.  On  forged 
affidavits,  hearsay,  and  newspaper  reports  and  verbal  state 
ments,  the  Lynch  Returning  Board,  consisting  of  four  men, 
without  legal  existence  as  a  returning  board,  got  together  and 
without  one  official  return,  or  other  legitimate  evidence  before 
them,  undertook  to  say  who  should  constitute  the  Legislature 
of  Louisiana.1 

1  Cong.  Globe,  1873,  p.  1744. 


406  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

This  was  Trumbull's  last  speech  in  the  Senate  and  was 
one  of  his  best,  but  other  influences  prevailed  with  Grant.1 

Thus  Kellogg  and  his  crew  became  the  masters  of 
Louisiana/and  four  years  later  became  the  deciding  factor 
in  the  Hayes-Tilden  presidential  contest. 

1  Rhodes  thinks  that  the  influence  which  prevailed  with  Grant  in  this  in 
stance  was  that  of  Morton.   (History  of  the  United  States,  vn,  111.) 


CHAPTER  XXVII 

LATER  YEARS 

THE  defeat  of  the  Liberal  Republicans  terminated 
Trumbull's  official  career.  His  senatorial  term  expired 
on  the  3d  of  March,  1873.  The  regular  Republicans  car 
ried  the  legislature  of  Illinois,  and  Richard  J.  Oglesby  was 
elected  Senator  in  his  stead.  He  was  now  sixty  years  of 
age  and  he  resumed  the  practice  of  his  profession  in  the 
city  of  Chicago,  which  had  been  his  place  of  residence 
during  the  greater  part  of  his  senatorial  service.  His  law 
firm  at  the  beginning  was  Trumbull,  Church  &  Trumbull, 
the  second  member  being  Mr.  Firman  Church  and  the 
third  Mr.  Perry  Trumbull,  a  son  of  the  ex-Senator.  Mr. 
William  J.  Bryan  soon  afterward  became  a  student  in 
the  office.  Various  changes  took  place  in  the  Trumbull 
law  firm.  Mr.  Church  removed  to  California,  and  his 
place  was  taken  by  Mr.  Henry  S.  Robbins,  and  the  firm 
became  Trumbull,  Robbins,  Willetts  &  Trumbull.  Mr. 
Hempstead  Washburne,  son  of  Hon.  Elihu  B.  Washburne, 
became  a  member  of  the  firm  later.  Trumbull's  reputa 
tion,  talents,  and  experience  soon  gave  him  a  place  in  the 
front  rank  of  his  profession,  which  he  maintained  till  the 
end  of  his  long  life.  I  shall  not  attempt  to  follow  the 
details  of  his  career  at  the  bar  except  as  they  touch  upon 
public  questions.  The  first  affair  of  this  kind  was  the 
Hayes-Tilden  disputed  election  of  1876. 

The  second  Grant  Administration  was  more  lament 
able  than  the  first  in  respect  of  military  rule,  turbulence, 
and  bloodshed  in  the  South  and  corruption  in  the  civil 
service  in  the  North.  These  evils  became  so  glaring  and 


408  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

intolerable  that  the  Republican  party  suffered  a  disas 
trous  defeat  in  the  congressional  elections  of  1874,  and 
failed  to  secure  a  majority  of  the  popular  vote  in  the 
presidential  election  of  1876.  The  opposing  candidates 
in  this  contest  were  Hayes  (Republican)  and  Tilden 
(Democrat).  One  hundred  and  eighty-five  electoral 
votes  were  necessary  to  a  choice.  The  undisputed  returns 
gave  Tilden  184  and  Hayes  166.  Those  of  Florida,  Louis 
iana,  and  South  Carolina  were  in  dispute.  It  was  neces 
sary  that  Hayes  should  have  all  of  them  in  order  to  be  the 
next  President.  All  of  these  states  were  under  military 
control,  and  the  returning  boards  who  had  the  power  of 
canvassing  the  votes,  and  the  governors  who  had  the 
power  of  certifying  the  result  to  Congress,  were  Republi 
cans. 

The  excitement  in  the  country  when  this  condition 
became  known  was  extreme.  No  confidence  was  placed 
in  the  character  of  the  Southern  returning  boards.  That 
of  Louisiana  consisted  of  three  knaves  and  one  fool,1  and 
the  governor  of  the  state  was  W.  P.  Kellogg,  who  had 
acquired  the  office  by  the  acts  of  usurpation  described  in 
the  preceding  chapter.  It  was  seen  at  once  that  unless 
some  respectable  tribunal  could  be  devised  to  decide 
between  the  conflicting  claims  the  country  might  drift 
into  a  new  civil  war.  The  first  thing  to  be  done  was  to 
endeavor  to  secure  a  fair  count  of  the  ballots  cast  in  the 
disputed  states.  To  this  end  a  certain  number  of  "visit 
ing  statesmen"  were  chosen  by  the  heads  of  their  respec 
tive  political  parties  to  go  to  the  scene  of  the  contest  and 
watch  all  the  steps  taken  by  the  canvassers  of  the  votes. 
President  Grant  appointed  those  of  the  Republican  party 
and  Abram  S.  Hewitt,  chairman  of  the  National  Demo 
cratic  Committee,  appointed  the  others.  Trumbull  had 

1  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  vn,  231. 


LATER  YEARS  409 

voted  for  Tilden  in  the  election,  and  he  was  chosen  by  '. 
Hewitt  as  one  of  ten  visiting  statesmen  for  Louisiana. 
Senator  Sherman,  of  Ohio,  was  one  of  the  Republican 
visitors.  Congress  passed  a  law  on  the  29th  of  January, 
1877,  to  create  an  Electoral  Commission,  consisting  of 
five  Senators,  five  Representatives,  and  five  judges  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  to  take  all  the  evidence  in  regard  to  the 
disputed  elections  and  to  render  a  decision  thereon  by  a 
majority  vote  of  the  fifteen  members.  Four  of  the  five 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  were  named  in  the  act  of 
Congress.  They  were  Miller  and  Swayne,  Republicans, 
and  Clifford  and  Field,  Democrats,  and  the  act  provided 
that  these  four  should  choose  the  fifth.  It  was  the  gen 
eral  expectation  that  they  would  choose  David  Davis  as 
the  fifth  member,  as  he  was  commonly  classed  as  an  Inde 
pendent,  since  he  had  been  a  candidate  in  the  Cincinnati 
Convention,  which  nominated  Greeley.  But,  on  the  very 
day  when  the  Electoral  Commission  Bill  passed,  Davis 
was  elected  by  the  legislature  of  Illinois  as  Senator  of  the 
United  States,  to  succeed  Logan  whose  term  was  expiring. 
Davis  accepted  the  senatorship  and  declined  to  serve  as 
the  fifth  judge.  Thereupon  Bradley  was  chosen  in  his 
stead. 

Trumbull  was  chosen  as  one  of  the  counsel  on  the  Til- 
den  side  to  argue  the  Louisiana  case.  On  the  14th  of  Feb 
ruary  he  appeared  before  the  Commission  and  offered 
to  show  that  the  votes  certified  by  the  commissioners  of 
election  in  the  voting  precincts  of  Louisiana  to  the  super 
visors  of  registration,  who  were  the  officers  legally  ap 
pointed  to  receive  the  same,  showed  a  majority  vary 
ing  from  six  to  nine  thousand  for  the  Tilden  electors;  that 
the  returning  board  did  not  receive  from  any  poll,  vot 
ing  place,  or  parish,  and  did  not  have  before  them,  any 
statement,  as  required  by  law,  of  any  riot,  tumult,  act  of 


410  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

violence,  intimidation,  armed  disturbance,  bribery,  or 
corrupt  influence  tending  to  prevent  a  free,  fair,  peaceable 
vote;  that  the  supervisors  of  registration,  without  any 
such  statements  of  violence  or  intimidation,  omitted  to 
include  in  the  returns  of  election,  or  to  make  any  mention 
of  the  same,  votes  amounting  to  a  majority  of  2267 
against  W.  P.  Kellogg,  one  of  the  Hayes  electors;  that 
the  votes  cast  on  the  7th  of  November,  1876,  had  never 
been  compiled  or  canvassed;  that  the  votes  had  never 
been  opened  by  the  governor  in  the  presence  of  the  other 
state  officers  required  by  law  to  be  present,  nor  in  the 
presence  of  any  of  them;  that  the  law  of  Louisiana 
required  that  both  political  parties  should  be  represented 
on  the  returning  board,  but  that  all  the  members,  four  in 
number,  were  Republicans,  and  that  although  there  was 
one  vacancy  on  the  board  they  refused  to  fill  it  by  choos 
ing  anybody;  that  the  returning  board  employed  as  clerks 
and  assistants  four  persons,  whose  names  were  given,  all 
of  whom  were  then  under  indictment  for  crime,  to  whom 
was  committed  the  task  of  compiling  and  canvassing  the 
returns,  and  that  none  but  Republicans  were  to  be  pres 
ent;  and  that  all  the  decisions  of  the  returning  board 
were  made  in  secret  session. 

Not  to  detain  you  [said  Trumbull]  as  to  this  Government  in 
Louisiana,  I  will  only  say  that  it  is  not  a  republican  government, 
for  it  is  a  matter  that  I  think  this  Commission  should  take  offi 
cial  knowledge  of,  that  the  pretended  officers  in  the  state  of 
Louisiana  are  upheld  by  military  power  alone.  They  could  not 
maintain  themselves  an  hour  but  for  military  support.  Is  that 
government  republican  which  rests  upon  military  power  for 
support?  A  republican  government  is  a  government  of  the  peo 
ple,  for  the  people,  and  by  the  people:  but  the  Government  in 
Louisiana  has  been  nothing  but  a  military  despotism  for  the  last 
four  years,  and  it  could  not  stand  a  day  if  the  people  were  not 
overborne  by  military  power. 


LATER  YEARS  411 

His  speech  was  about  two  hours  long,  and  he  was  fol 
lowed  by  Carpenter  and  Campbell  on  the  same  side.  The 
leading  argument  on  the  Hayes  side  was  made  by  Mr.  E. 
W.  Stoughton,  of  New  York,  who  contended  that  neither 
the  Commission  nor  Congress  itself  could  go  behind  the 
official  returns  certified  by  the  governor  of  the  state  of 
Louisiana,  and  that  the  recognition  of  Kellogg  as  gov 
ernor  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  was  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  fact  that  he  was  the  person  empowered 
to  act  in  that  capacity. 

By  a  vote  of  eight  to  seven  the  Commission  decided  in 
favor  of  Stoughton's  contention,  and  the  same  rule  was 
applied  to  all  the  other  disputed  returns,  and  by  this  ruling 
the  presidential  office  was  awarded  to  Rutherford  B .  Hayes. 

Under  the  circumstances  then  existing,  and  with  the 
characters  then  holding  office  in  Louisiana,  it  is  obvious 
that  the  latter  had  power  to  throw  out  an  unlimited  num 
ber  of  Tilden  votes  if  necessary  to  make  a  majority  for 
Hayes.  It  is  not  obvious  that  the  supporters  of  Tilden 
had  power  to  intimidate  an  unlimited  number  of  negroes; 
the  number  of  the  latter  was  slightly  less  than  the  number 
of  whites  in  the  State,  and  it  was  known  that  some  of  the 
negroes  had  joined  the  conservative  party.  Moreover, 
the  Kellogg  government  was  shamefully  illegal,  even  as 
measured  by  the  standards  then  enforced  upon  the  South. 
It  is  fair  to  presume,  therefore,  that  Tilden  was  justly 
entitled  to  the  electoral  votes  of  Louisiana.  That  is  my 
belief  although  I  voted  for  Hayes. 

It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  the  decision  of  the 
Electoral  Commission  was  wrong.  That  body  was  bound 
to  consider  the  remote  as  well  as  the  immediate  conse 
quences  of  its  acts.  It  was  engaged  in  making  a  prece 
dent  to  be  followed  in  similar  disputes  thereafter,  if  such 
should  arise.  If  Congress,  or  any  commission  acting  by 


412  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

its  authority,  should  assume  the  functions  of  a  returning 
board  for  all  the  states  in  future  presidential  elections, 
what  limit  could  be  set  to  their  investigations,  or  to  the 
passions  agitating  the  country  while  the  same  were  in  pro 
gress?  In  short,  the  Electoral  Commission  was  sitting 
not  to  do  justice  between  man  and  man,  but  to  save  the 
Republic.  Even  if  it  made  a  mistake  in  the  exercise  of 
its  discretion,  the  mistake  was  pardonable. 

On  the  3d  of  November,  1877,  the  subject  of  this 
memoir  was  married  to  Miss  Mary  Ingraham,  of  Say- 
brook  Point,  Connecticut.  The  lady's  mother  was  his 
first  cousin.  Two  daughters  were  born  of  this  union,  both 
of  whom  died  in  infancy. 

In  1880,  when  the  next  presidential  campaign,  that  of 
Garfield  and  Hancock,  opened,  the  Democrats  of  Illinois 
nominated  Trumbull  for  governor  of  the  State,  without 
his  own  solicitation  or  desire.  He  was  now  sixty-seven 
years  of  age,  with  powers  of  body  and  mind  unimpaired. 
In  accepting  the  nomination  he  gave  a  brief  account  of 
his  political  life  extending  over  a  period  of  nearly  forty 
years.  He  acknowledged  that  he  had  made  mistakes, 
but  said  he  had  never  given  a  vote  or  performed  an  act  in 
his  official  capacity  which  he  did  not  at  the  time  believe 
was  for  his  country's  good.  He  made  a  vigorous  cam 
paign,  but  the  traces  left  of  it  in  the  newspapers  contain 
nothing  that  need  be  recalled  now.  The  Republican 
majority  in  the  state  was  between  thirty  and  forty  thou 
sand.  The  Republicans  nominated  Shelby  M.  Cullom 
for  Governor  and  he  was  elected. 

The  World's  Columbian  Exposition  took  place  at  Chi 
cago  in  the  year  1893.  During  one  of  my  visits  to  it  I  had 


LATER  YEARS  413 

the  pleasure  of  dining  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Trumbull  at 
their  home  on  Lake  Avenue.  The  only  other  guest  was 
William  J.  Bryan,  whom  I  had  not  met  before.  The  lead 
ing  issue  in  politics  then  was  the  free  coinage  of  silver  at 
the  ratio  of  sixteen  to  one.  Mr.  Bryan  was  an  enthusias 
tic  free-silver  man  and  a  firm  believer  in  the  early  triumph 
of  that  doctrine.  Trumbull  was  inclined  to  the  same 
belief,  although  less  confident  of  its  success.  We  had  an 
animated  but  friendly  discussion  of  that  question.  Presi 
dent  Cleveland  had  just  called  a  special  session  of  Con 
gress  to  repeal  the  Silver  Purchasing  Act  then  in  force, 
which  was  not  a  free-coinage  law.  I  ventured  to  predict 
to  my  table  companions  that  the  purchasing  law  would 
be  repealed  and  that  no  free-coinage  law  would  be  enacted 
in  place  of  it,  either  then  or  later.  None  of  us  imagined 
that  three  years  from  that  time  Mr.  Bryan  himself  would 
be  the  nominee  of  the  Democratic  party  for  President  of 
the  United  States,  on  that  issue.  Trumbull's  geniality 
and  cordiality  at  this  meeting  were  a  joy  to  his  guests. 
Our  conversation,  ranging  over  a  period  of  nearly  forty 
years,  filled  two  delightful  hours.  He  was  then  eighty 
years  of  age,  but  in  vigor  of  mind  and  body  I  did  not 
notice  any  change  in  him.  We  parted,  not  knowing  that 
we  should  not  meet  again. 

Trumbull's  next  appearance  on  the  public  stage  was  in 
the  case  of  Eugene  V.  Debs,  who  is  still  with  us  as  a  per 
petual  candidate  of  the  Socialistic  party  for  President. 
In  1894  he  was  president  of  an  organization  of  railway 
employees  known  as  the  American  Railway  Union.  In 
the  month  of  May  a  dispute  arose  between  the  Pullman 
Palace  Car  Company  and  its  employees  in  reference  to 
the  rate  of  wages,  which  resulted  in  a  strike.  Debs  and 
his  fellow  officers  of  the  Railway  Union,  for  the  purpose 
of  compelling  the  Pullman  Company  to  yield  to  the 


414  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

demands  of  their  employees,  issued  an  order  to  the  rail 
way  companies  that  they  should  cease  hauling  Pullman 
cars,  and,  if  they  should  not  so  cease,  that  the  trainmen, 
switchmen,  and  others  working  on  the  railways  aforesaid 
should  strike  also.  As  a  consequence  of  this  order  twenty- 
two  railroads  were  "tied  up."  All  passengers  trains 
composed  in  part  of  Pullman  cars  were  brought  to  a 
standstill.  Riots  broke  out  in  the  streets  of  Chicago.  An 
injunction  was  issued  against  Debs  by  Judge  Woods,  of 
the  United  States  Circuit  Court.  Governor  Altgelt,  of 
Illinois,  was  called  upon  to  restore  order  in  the  city,  but 
before  he  did  so  President  Cleveland,  having  been  offi 
cially  informed  that  the  movement  of  the  mails  was 
obstructed  by  violence  in  the  streets  of  Chicago,  ordered 
a  small  body  of  troops  to  that  city  to  break  the  blockade. 
This  they  accomplished  without  delay  and  without  blood 
shed.  In  the  mean  time  Debs  and  his  associates  were  put 
under  arrest  for  violating  the  injunction  of  the  court. 
Debs  employed  Mr.  Clarence  Darrow  as  his  attorney, 
and  Darrow  applied  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  which 
was  refused.  Darrow  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  and  engaged  Lyman  Trumbull  and  S. 
S.  Gregory  as  associate  counsel.  The  appeal  was  argued 
by  Trumbull  at  the  October  Term  in  Washington  City. 
Trumbull  had  volunteered  his  service  and  refused  a  fee, 
accepting  only  his  traveling  expenses.  The  court  rejected 
the  petition  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and  affirmed  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  circuit  court. 

Both  President  Cleveland  and  the  court  were  sustained 
by  public  opinion  in  this  disposition  of  Debs.  On  the  6th 
of  October,  a  large  meeting  was  held  at  Central  Music 
Hall  in  Chicago  to  consider  the  recent  exciting  events. 
It  was  addressed  by  Trumbull  and  Henry  D.  Lloyd. 
Trumbull's  speech  was  published  in  the  newspapers  and 


LATER  YEARS  415 

in  pamphlet  form  as  a  Populist  campaign  document.  It 
was  extremely  effective  from  the  Populist  point  of  view, 
and  was  not,  on  the  whole,  more  radical  than  the  so- 
called  Progressive  platform  of  the  present  day.  While 
expressing  decided  opinions  on  the  subject  of  "judicial 
usurpation"  (referring  to  the  Debs  case  without  men 
tioning  it),  he  exhorted  his  hearers  to  seek  a  remedy  by 
the  action  of  Congress.  "It  is  to  be  hoped,"  he  said, 
"that  Congress  when  it  meets  will  put  some  check  upon 
federal  judges  in  assuming  control  of  railroads  and  issuing 
blanket  injunctions  and  punishing  people  for  contempt 
of  their  assumed  authority.  If  Congress  does  not  do  it,  I 
trust  the  people  will  see  to  it  that  representatives  are 
chosen  hereafter  who  will."  The  recall  of  judges,  as  a 
remedy  for  unpopular  decisions,  had  not  yet  been  dis 
covered. 

The  testimony  of  persons  who  were  present  at  this  meet 
ing  is  that  Trumbull  showed  no  abatement  of  his  powers 
as  a  speaker,  and  that  the  audience  "went  wild  with 
enthusiasm." 

In  the  month  of  December  following,  the  leaders  of 
the  People's  party  in  Chicago,  ten  in  number,  requested 
Trumbull  to  prepare  a  declaration  of  principles  to  be 
presented  by  them  for  consideration  at  a  national  confer 
ence  of  their  party  to  meet  at  St.  Louis  on  the  28th.  This 
paper  was  drawn  up  and  delivered  to  them  in  his  own 
handwriting  a  few  days  before  the  meeting  and  was  pub 
lished  in  the  Chicago  Times  of  December  27,  in  the  follow 
ing  words: 

1.  Resolved,  That  human  brotherhood  and  equality  of  rights 
are  cardinal  principles  of  true  democracy. 

2.  Resolved,  That,  forgetting  all  past  political  differences, 
we  unite  in  the  common  purpose  to  rescue  the  Government 
from  the  control  of  monopolists  and  concentrated  wealth,  to 


416  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

limit  their  powers  of  perpetuation  by  curtailing  their  privileges, 
and  to  secure  the  rights  of  free  speech,  a  free  press,  free  labor, 
and  trial  by  jury  —  all  rules,  regulations,  and  judicial  dicta  in 
derogation  of  either  of  which  are  arbitrary,  unconstitutional, 
and  not  to  be  tolerated  by  a  free  people. 

3.  We  endorse  the  resolution   adopted  by  the  National 
Republican  Convention  of  1860,  which  was  incorporated  by 
President  Lincoln  in  his  inaugural  address,  as  follows:  "That 
the  maintenance  inviolate  of  the  rights  of  the  states,  and  espe 
cially  of  the  right  of  each  state  to  order  and  control  its  own 
domestic  institutions  according  to  its  own  judgment  exclusively, 
is  essential  to  that  balance  of  power  on  which  the  endurance 
of  our  political  fabric  depends,  and  we  denounce  the  lawless 
invasion  by  armed  force  of  the  soil  of  any  state  or  territory,  no 
matter  under  what  pretext,  as  among  the  gravest  of  crimes." 

4.  Resolved,  That  the  power  given  Congress  by  the  Consti 
tution  to  provide  for  calling  forth  the  militia  to  execute  the 
laws  of  the  Union,  to  suppress  insurrections,  to  repel  invasions, 
does  not  warrant  the  Government  in  making  use  of  a  standing 
army  in  aiding  monopolies  in  the  oppression  of  their  employees. 
When  freemen  unsheathe  the  sword  it  should  be  to  strike  for 
liberty,  not  for  despotism,  or  to  uphold  privileged  monopolies 
in  the  oppression  of  the  poor. 

5.  Resolved,  That  to  check  the  rapid  absorption  of  the 
wealth  of  the  country  and  its  perpetuation  in  a  few  hands  we 
demand  the  enactment  of  laws  limiting  the  amount  of  property 
to  be  acquired  by  devise  or  inheritance. 

6.  Resolved,  That  we  denounce  the  issue  of  interest-bearing 
bonds  by  the  Government  in  times  of  peace,  to  be  paid  for,  in 
part  at  least,  by  gold  drawn  from  the  Treasury,  which  results  in 
the  Government's  paying  interest  on  its  own  money. 

7.  Resolved,  That  we  demand  that  Congress  perform  the 
constitutional  duty  to  coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thereof 
and  of  foreign  coin  by  the  enactment  of  laws  for  the  free  coin 
age  of  silver  with  that  of  gold  at  the  ratio  of  16  to  1. 

8.  Resolved,  That  monopolies  affecting  the  public  interest 
should  be  owned  and  operated  by  the  Government  in  the  inter 
est  of  the  people;  all  employees  of  the  same  to  be  governed  by 
civil  service  rules,  and  no  one  to  be  employed  or  displaced  on 
account  of  politics. 


LATER  YEARS  417 

9.  Resolved,  That  we  inscribe  on  our  banner,  "Down  with 
monopolies  and  millionaire  control !  Up  with  the  rights  of  man 
and  the  masses!"  And  under  this  banner  we  march  to  the 
polls  and  to  victory. 

These  resolutions  were  conveyed  to  the  St.  Louis  meet 
ing  by  Henry  D.  Lloyd  and  F.  J.  Schulte  and  were 
adopted  by  the  conference  without  alteration. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 

CONCLUSION 

ON  the  22d  of  March,  1896,  Trumbull  made  an  argu 
ment  before  the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington  City.  On 
the  llth  of  April,  although  ailing  from  an  unknown 
malady,  he  went  to  Belleville  to  attend  the  funeral  of  his 
old  and  faithful  friend,  Gustave  Koerner,  and  to  make  a 
brief  address  over  the  remains.  This  journey  was  made 
against  the  advice  of  his  physician.  At  the  conclusion  of 
his  remarks  he  became  ill  at  his  hotel  in  Belleville.  There 
was  a  consultation  of  physicians,  who  reached  the  conclu 
sion  that  he  would  be  able  to  go  home  if  he  should  go  at 
once.  He  decided  not  to  delay,  and  he  reached  home  on 
the  morning  of  April  13.  Here  another  consultation  of 
physicians  took  place  at  which  a  surgical  operation  was 
decided  upon.  This  led  to  the  discovery  of  an  internal 
tumor  which,  in  their  judgment,  could  not  be  removed 
without  causing  immediate  death.  He  lingered  till  the 
5th  of  June.  Before  his  death  he  made  a  calm  and  care 
ful  adjustment  of  his  business  affairs  and  gave  to  his  chil 
dren  and  grandchildren  keepsakes  that  he  had  for  years 
preserved  for  them.  He  passed  away  at  the  age  of  eighty- 
two  years,  seven  months,  and  twelve  days.  His  funeral, 
which  was  largely  attended,  took  place  from  his  house, 
No.  4008  Lake  Avenue,  and  his  remains  were  interred  in 
Oakwoods  Cemetery. 

There  was  a  meeting  of  the  Bar  Association  of  Chicago 
to  prepare  a  memorial  on  his  life  and  services.  On  this 
occasion  Hon.  Thomas  A.  Moran,  former  judge  of  the 
appellate  court,  said: 


CONCLUSION  419 

At  the  end  of  his  career  in  the  United  States  Senate,  Judge 
Trumbull  became  a  member  of  the  Chicago  Bar.  He  was 
thereafter  continuously,  and  up  to  the  time  of  his  death, 
engaged  in  the  active  and  laborious  practice  of  his  profession. 
The  great  place  that  he  had  held  in  the  councils  of  the  nation, 
the  influence  that  he  had  exerted  upon  national  legislation, 
and  the  esteem  in  which  he  was  held  by  the  lawyers  and  the 
statesmen  of  the  country,  entitled  him  to  a  lofty  mien;  but  as  is 
well  known  to  us  all  who  had  the  privilege  of  his  acquaintance 
at  the  bar,  while  his  demeanor  was  grave  it  was  also  modest, 
and  his  manner  was  marked  by  a  gentleness  that  was  most 
grateful  to  everybody  with  whom  he  came  in  contact.  His 
sincerity  and  honesty  in  the  presentation  of  his  case,  his  respect 
ful  demeanor  to  any  court  in  which  he  was  engaged  in  a  legal 
contest,  constituted  him  a  model  that  the  lawyers  of  our  bar 
might  well  imitate.  He  was  in  practice  at  the  bar  forty-four 
years  after  he  ceased  to  be  a  judge  of  the  supreme  court  of  this 
state.  .  .  .  He  was  preeminently  the  grand  old  man  of  this  coun 
try.  In  his  intercourse  with  his  fellow  citizens  he  was  a  quiet, 
sincere,  frank,  honest  American  gentleman.  Lyman  Trumbull 
was  one  of  the  very  great  men  of  the  nation. 

Eulogistic  remarks  were  made  also  by  Senator  John  M. 
Palmer,  ex-Senator  James  R.  Doolittle,  and  Judge  Henry 
W.  Blodgett.  Mr.  Doolittle  said  that  of  the  sixty-six 
members  of  the  United  States  Senate  who  were  there 
when  Secession  began,  only  four  were  then  living.  They 
were  Harlan,  of  Iowa,  Rice,  of  Minnesota,  Clingman,  of 
North  Carolina,  and  himself  (Doolittle). 

Trumbull's  forte  was  that  of  a  political  debater  well 
grounded  in  the  law.  Here  he  stood  in  the  very  front 
rank,  both  as  a  Senator  addressing  his  equals  and  as  an 
orator  on  the  hustings.  He  was  always  ready  to  discuss 
the  questions  which  he  was  required  to  face.  He  had  a 
logical  mind,  and  the  ability  to  think  quickly  and  to  choose 
the  right  words  to  express  his  ideas.  He  never  wasted 
words  in  ornament  or  display.  He  never  lost  his  balance 
when  addressing  the  Senate,  or  a  public  audience.  He 


420  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

had  perfect  self-possession.  He  never  stood  in  awe  of  any 
other  debater  or  hesitated  to  reply  promptly  to  question 
or  challenge.  Nor  did  he  ever  lose  his  dignity  in  debate. 
Once  he  came  near  to  calling  Sumner  a  falsifier,  when  the 
latter  had  described  him  as  recreant  to  the  principles  of 
human  liberty;  but  he  restrained  himself  in  time  to  avoid 
an  infraction  of  the  rules  of  the  Senate.  And  he  after 
wards  came  to  the  defense  of  Sumner  when  the  latter  was 
deposed,  by  his  more  subservient  colleagues,  from  the 
chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations. 
On  this  occasion  Sumner  came  forward  holding  out  both 
hands,  and  with  tears  in  his  eyes  thanked  him  for  his 
generosity. 

His  rare  forensic  gifts  would  have  been  unavailing 
without  confidence  in  the  justice  of  his  cause,  and  a  clear 
conscience  which  shone  in  his  face  and  pervaded  him 
through  and  through.  Although  not  endowed  with  ora 
torical  graces  he  grasped  the  attention  of  his  audience  at 
once,  and  he  never  failed  to  convince  his  hearers  that  he 
had  an  eye  single  to  the  public  good.  It  was  hard  for  him 
to  separate  himself  from  the  Republican  party  in  1871-72, 
but  he  considered  it  a  duty  that  he  owed  to  the  country  to 
expose  the  rottenness  then  pervading  the  national  admin 
istration.  He  did  not  have  General  Grant  in  mind  when 
he  moved  the  investigation  of  custom-house  frauds  in 
New  York.  He  did  not  aim  at  him  directly  or  indirectly, 
but  at  the  system  which  had  grown  up  before  his  election. 
Grant's  mental  make-up  was  such  that  he  considered  any 
fault-finding  with  federal  office-holders  a  reproach  to 
himself,  as  the  head  of  the  Government,  and  accordingly 
braced  himself  against  it;  and  this  habit  grew  on  him 
through  the  whole  eight  years  of  his  presidency.  Yet 
Trumbull  uttered  no  reproach  against  him  during  the 
campaign  of  1872,  or  later. 


CONCLUSION  421 

It  was  commonly  said  that  TrumbuH's  nature  was  cold 
and  unsympathetic.  This  was  a  mannerism  merely.  He 
did  not  carry  his  heart  upon  his  sleeve  for  daws  to  peck 
at,  but  he  was  an  affectionate  husband  and  father  and 
grandfather,  most  generous  to  his  parents,  brothers,  and 
sisters,  and  one  of  the  most  unselfish  men  I  ever  knew. 
His  poor  constituents,  who  were  often  stranded  in  Wash 
ington,  needing  help  to  get  home,  seldom  applied  to 
him  for  assistance  in  vain,  and  this  kind  of  drain  was 
pretty  severe  during  his  whole  senatorial  service.  He  was 
fond  of  little  children.  He  was  often  seen  playing  cro 
quet  with  his  own  and  others  in  Washington  City.  Mr. 
Morris  St.  P.  Thomas,  a  member  of  the  Chicago  Bar  who 
shared  Trumbull's  office  during  his  later  years,  says  that 
he  never  knew  a  warmer-hearted  man  than  Trumbull. 
He  was  kindness  and  consideration  itself  to  the  people  in 
his  office.  He  was  never  cross  or  short,  and  every  young 
man  there  always  felt  that  he  could  go  into  the  judge's 
room  whenever  he  liked,  and  sit  down  and  tell  him  his 
troubles.  Once  it  devolved  upon  Mr.  Thomas  to  engage 
a  stenographer  for  the  office.  Of  the  several  applicants 
the  best  was  an  unprepossessing,  hump-backed  girl.  "I 
told  the  judge  about  her  —  that  she  was  the  ablest  appli 
cant,  but  very  unprepossessing  in  appearance."  "Why," 
said  he,  at  once,  "that's  the  very  reason  to  take  her,  poor 
girl!"  And  they  kept  her  for  years.1 

In  short,  he  was  a  high-minded,  kind-hearted,  cour 
teous  gentleman,  without  ostentation  and  without  guile. 
In  business  affairs  he  was  punctual,  accurate,  and  spot 
less.  He  never  borrowed  money,  never  bought  anything 
that  he  could  not  pay  cash  for,  never  gave  a  promissory 
note  in  his  life,  not  even  in  the  purchase  of  real  estate 
where  deferred  payments  are  customary.  The  best  blood 

1  Interview,  June  13.  1910. 


422  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

of  New  England  coursed  in  his  veins  and  he  never  dis 
honored  it,  in  either  private  or  public  life. 

It  is  perhaps  too  early  to  assign  to  Trumbull  his  proper 
place  in  the  roll  of  statesmen  of  the  Civil  War  period. 
Those  who  come  after  us  and  can  look  back  one  hundred 
years,  instead  of  fifty,  will  doubtless  have  a  better  perspec 
tive  and  a  clearer  vision  than  those  who  lived  with  the 
actors  of  that  momentous  struggle.  Some  things,  how 
ever,  we  may  be  sure  of.  One  is  that  the  man  who  drew 
the  Thirteenth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution,  abolish 
ing  slavery  in  the  United  States  and  all  places  under  the 
jurisdiction  thereof,  will  never  be  forgotten  as  long  as  the 
love  of  liberty  survives  in  this  land.  Not  that  the  Thir 
teenth  Amendment  would  not  have  been  passed  and 
incorporated  in  our  system  even  if  Lyman  Trumbull  had 
not  been  a  Senator,  or  if  he  had  never  been  born.  It  was 
a  consequence  of  the  taking-up  of  arms  against  the  Union 
in  1861  that  slavery  should  come  to  an  end  somehow.  All 
that  Lincoln  did,  all  that  Trumbull  did,  all  that  Congress 
did,  was  to  seize  the  occasion  to  give  direction  to  certain 
irresistible  forces  then  called  into  existence  for  blessing  or 
cursing  mankind.  There  were  different  ways  of  bringing 
slavery  to  an  end.  That  of  constitutional  amendment 
was  the  best  of  all  because  it  removed  the  subject-matter 
from  the  field  of  dispute  at  once  and  forever.  Lincoln 
paved  the  way  for  it.  He  prepared  the  public  mind  for 
it  by  his  two  proclamations  of  emancipation.  Trumbull 
and  Congress  and  the  state  legislatures  did  the  rest. 

It  may  be  fairly  said  that  Trumbull  took  the  lead  in 
putting  an  end  to  arbitrary  arrests  in  the  loyal  states 
where  the  courts  of  justice  were  open,  and  in  prescribing 
the  process  of  the  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 
This  was  a  difficult  problem  to  handle  and  it  cost  Trum 
bull  some  popularity,  since  the  loyal  spirit  of  the  North 


CONCLUSION  423 

was  very  touchy  on  the  subject  of  Copperheads  and 
easily  inflamed  against  anybody  who  was  accused  of  sym 
pathy  with  them.  The  law  finally  passed  seems  now  to  be 
altogether  just,  and  well  suited  to  be  put  in  practice  again 
if  occasion  for  it  should  arise. 

Trumbull's  place  as  one  of  the  "Seven  Traitors"  who 
voted  not  guilty  on  the  impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson 
is  now  universally  considered  a  proud  position,  and  I 
think  that  that  of  his  neighbor  and  friend,  James  R.  Doo- 
little,  of  Wisconsin,  who  earned  the  title  of  traitor  a  year 
or  two  earlier,  is  entitled  to  a  place  in  the  same  Valhalla. 
Both  are  deserving  of  monuments  at  the  hands  of  their 
respective  states. 

The  reader  of  these  pages  cannot  fail  to  discern  a 
marked  change  in  Trumbull's  course  on  Reconstruction 
about  midway  of  the  struggle  on  that  issue.  Gideon 
Welles  said,  under  date  January  16, 1867, "  He  [Trumbull] 
has  changed  his  principles  within  a  year.1  The  facts  are 
that  he  agreed  with  Lincoln's  plan  of  Reconstruction, 
embodied  it  in  the  Louisiana  Bill,  reported  it  favorably 
from  the  Judiciary  Committee,  tried  to  pass  it  in  the 
closing  days  of  the  Thirty-eighth  Congress,  but  was 
prevented  by  the  filibustering  tactics  of  Sumner.  After 
Johnson  became  President  he  adhered  to  that  plan  until 
Johnson  vetoed  the  Freedmen's  Bureau  and  Civil  Rights 
Bills.  He  then  believed  that  Johnson  had  betrayed  the 
cause  for  which  the  nation  had  fought  through  a  four 
years'  war  and  that  the  freedom  of  the  blacks  would  be 
endangered  if  Johnson  were  sustained  by  the  loyal  states. 
He  accordingly  went  with  his  party,  but  with  misgivings, 
halting  now  and  then,  putting  blocks  in  the  way  of  the 
radicals  here  and  there.  He  ceased  to  be  the  leader  of  the 
Senate  as  he  had  hitherto  been,  on  this  class  of  questions, 

1  Diary  of  Gideon  Welles,  in,  21. 


424  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

and  he  became  a  reluctant  follower.  When  Sumner 
became  angry  and  charged  him  in  1870  with  betrayal  of 
the  cause  of  freedom,  he  hotly  affirmed  that  he  had  voted 
for  every  measure  for  the  equal  rights  of  the  freedmen 
that  Congress  had  passed,  including  the  three  constitu 
tional  amendments.  The  truth  was  that  he  had  put 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  several  measures  that  Sumner 
deemed  indispensable,  until  it  became  plain  that  the 
Republican  party  was  determined  to  pass  them  and  that 
further  resistance  would  be  useless.  Then  he  gave  his 
assent  to  them.  This  course  he  pursued  until  the  Anti- 
Ku-Klux  Bill  was  agreed  to,  by  the  Judiciary  Committee, 
in  1871.  Against  this  measure  he  voted  in  the  committee 
and  in  the  Senate.  He  held  it  to  be  unconstitutional,  and 
he  used  against  it  the  same  arguments  in  substance  that 
Bingham  had  used  in  the  House  against  the  Civil  Rights 
Bill;  and  both  he  and  Bingham  were  right.  Trumbull 
did  not  change  his  principles,  but  he  made  an  error  in 
common  with  his  party  and  he  corrected  it  as  soon  as  he 
became  convinced  that  it  was  an  error.  I  am  open  to  the 
same  criticism. 

Among  interviews  with  men  of  note  published  in  the 
Chicago  press  concerning  the  deceased  was  one  with  Mr. 
Joseph  Medill,  not  a  friendly  critic  but  a  political  seer  of 
the  first  class,  who  thought  that  Trumbull  might  have 
been  President  of  the  United  States  if  he  had  voted,  in 
the  impeachment  case,  to  convict  Andrew  Johnson. 

If  he  had  remained  true  to  his  party  [said  Mr.  Medill],  Judge 
Trumbull,  I  believe,  would  have  died  with  his  name  in  the  roll 
of  Presidents  of  the  United  States.  I  have  always  thought  that 
he  could  have  been  the  successor  of  Grant.  He  stood  so  high  in 
the  estimation  of  his  party  and  the  nation  that  nothing  was 
beyond  his  reach.  Grant,  of  course,  came  before  everybody, 
but  Trumbull  was  next,  a  man  of  great  ability,  undoubted 
integrity,  and  stainless  reputation,  pure  as  the  driven  snow  and 


CONCLUSION  425 

nearly  as  cold.  He  could  have  been  President  instead  of  Hayes, 
or  Garfield,  or  Harrison.1 

Following  the  interview  with  Mr.  Medill  is  one  with 
Mr.  Henry  S.  Robbins,  a  member  of  Trumbull's  law  firm 
from  1883  until  1890.  Mr.  Robbins  did  not  find  Trum- 
bull  a  cold  man. 

All  the  time  we  were  together  [said  Mr.  Robbins]  I  never 
heard  him  speak  a  cross  word  to  a  clerk  in  the  office.  Among 
children  he  was  a  child  again.  He  and  his  little  grandson,  the 
child  of  Walter  Trumbull,  who  died  several  years  ago,  were 
inseparable  companions  when  the  grandfather  was  at  home. 
They  played  together  and  talked  together  like  two  little  boys. 
All  the  children  in  the  neighborhood  where  he  lived  were  wont 
to  come  to  him  with  their  little  troubles  and  always  found  him 
one  who  could  enter  into  fullest  sympathy  with  them.  Judge 
Trumbull  had  no  worldliness.  He  seemed  to  practice  law  as  a 
mission,  not  as  a  vocation  by  which  to  make  money.  With  his 
reputation  and  his  ability  combined  he  might  have  died  a 
millionaire.  It  always  gave  him  a  pang  to  charge  a  fee,  and 
when  he  fixed  the  charge  it  was  usually  about  half  what  a 
modern  lawyer  would  charge.1 

Another  partner,  Mr.  William  N.  Homer,  said: 

I  came  here  from  Belleville  where  Judge  Trumbull  formerly 
lived,  and  people  down  there  —  some  of  them  at  least  —  used 
to  think  that  he  was  a  cold  man.  I  never  found  him  so.  I 
remember  the  first  day  we  moved  into  these  offices  and  while 
we  were  getting  settled,  Judge  Trumbull  worked  harder  than 
any  of  us.  He  was  more  solicitous  for  our  comfort  than  he  was 
for  his  own.  He  was  always  trying  to  do  something  for  the 
comfort  of  others.  He  had  all  the  gentleness  and  sweetness  of 
disposition  and  patience  of  a  woman.1 

Mr.  C.  S.  Darrow,  who  had  charge  of  the  Debs  case  in 
which  Trumbull  volunteered  his  services,  said  that 

the   socialistic  trend  of  the  venerable  statesman's   opinions 
in  his  later  years  sprang  from  his  deep  sympathies  with  all 

1  Chicago  Times,  June  26,  1896. 


426  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

unfortunates;  that  sympathy  that  made  him  an  anti-slavery 
Democrat  in  his  early  years,  and  afterwards  a  Republican.  He 
became  convinced  that  the  poor  who  toil  for  a  living  in  this 
world  were  not  getting  a  fair  chance.  His  heart  was  with  them.  * 

A  letter  to  myself  from  the  widow  of  Walter  Trumbull, 
who  died  in  1891,  says: 

After  my  husband  died,  I,  with  my  two  boys,  lived  with  Judge 
Trumbull  until  his  death;  and  I  wish  I  could  tell  you  how  beau 
tiful  that  home  life  was.  He  was  so  devoted  to  his  family,  so 
sweet  and  tender  and  thoughtful  for  us  all.  Others  never  real 
ized  this  and  often  thought  him  cold.  He  was  so  great  a  man 
and  yet  so  gentle  and  simple  in  his  ways  that  little  children 
clung  to  him. 

Among  the  papers  left  by  Trumbull  was  the  following 
estimate  of  the  character  and  career  of  Abraham  Lincoln. 
It  was  addressed  to  his  son  Walter  Trumbull  and  is  here 
published  for  the  first  time: 

MY  DEAR  SON  :  I  have  often  been  requested  to  give  my  esti 
mate  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  life  and  character.  His  death  at  the 
close  of  a  great  civil  war  in  which  the  Government  of  which  he 
was  the  head  had  been  successful,  and  the  manner  of  his  taking 
off,  were  not  favorable  to  a  candid  and  impartial  review  of  his 
character.  The  temper  of  the  public  mind  at  that  time  would 
not  tolerate  anything  but  praise  of  the  martyred  President,  and 
even  now  it  is  questionable  whether  the  truthful  history  of  his 
life  by  Mr.  Herndon,  his  lifelong  friend,  and  law  partner  for 
twenty  years,  will  be  received  with  favor.  As  I  could  not  give 
any  other  than  a  truthful  narration  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  character, 
as  he  was  known  to  me,  I  have  hitherto  declined  to  write  any 
thing  for  the  public  concerning  him.  Having  known  him  at 
different  times  as  a  political  adversary  and  a  political  friend, 
my  opportunities  for  judging  his  public  life  and  character 
were  from  different  standpoints.  We  were  members  of  the  Illi 
nois  House  of  Representatives  in  1840.  He  was  a  Whig  and  I 
a  Democrat,  but  we  had  no  controversies,  political  or  otherwise. 
Indeed,  Mr.  Lincoln  took  very  little  part  in  the  legislation  of 
1  Chicago  Times,  June  26,  1896. 


CONCLUSION  427 

that  session.  It  was  the  period  when,  as  related  by  Mr.  Hern- 
don,  he  was  engaged  in  love  affairs  which  some  of  his  friends 
feared  had  well-nigh  unsettled  his  mental  faculties.  I  recall 
but  one  speech  he  made  during  the  session.  In  that  he  told  a 
story  which  convulsed  the  House  to  the  great  discomfiture  of 
the  member  at  whom  it  was  aimed.  Mr.  Lincoln  was  regarded 
at  that  time  by  his  political  friends  as  among  their  shrewdest 
and  ablest  leaders,  and  by  his  political  adversaries  as  a  formid 
able  opponent.  Contemporary  with  him  in  the  legislature  of 
1840  were  Edward  D.  Baker,  William  A.  Richardson,  William 
H.  Bissell,  Thomas  Drummond,  John  J.  Hardin,  John  A.  Mc- 
Clernand,  Ebenezer  Peck,  and  others  whose  subsequent  careers 
in  the  national  councils,  on  the  field  of  battle,  and  in  civil  life 
have  shed  lustre  on  their  country's  history.  It  is  no  mean  praise 
to  say  of  Mr.  Lincoln  that  among  this  galaxy  of  young  men 
convened  at  the  capital  of  Illinois  in  1840,  to  whom  may  be 
added  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  although  not  then  a  member  of  the 
legislature,  he  stood  in  the  front  rank. 

As  a  lawyer  Mr.  Lincoln  was  painstaking,  discriminating, 
and  accurate.  He  mastered  his  cases,  and  had  a  most  happy 
and  fascinating  way  of  presenting  them.  He  was  logical,  fair, 
and  candid.  It  was  said  of  him  by  one  of  the  most  eminent 
judges  who  ever  presided  in  Illinois,  that  after  Mr.  Lincoln  had 
opened  a  case  he  [the  judge]  fully  understood  both  sides  of  it. 
Some  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  contemporaries  at  the  bar  were  more 
learned,  and  better  lawyers,  but  no  one  managed  a  case,  which 
he  had  time  to  thoroughly  study  and  understand,  more  adroitly. 
The  breaking-up  of  the  Whig  and  Democratic  parties  in  1854, 
growing  out  of  the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise,  and 
the  opening  of  the  territory  to  slavery,  threw  Mr.  Lincoln  and 
myself  together  politically.  We  were  both  opposed  to  the 
spread  of  slavery,  and  from  the  foundation  of  the  Republican 
party  till  his  death  we  were  in  political  accord.  I  do  not  claim 
to  have  been  his  confidant,  and  doubt  if  any  man  ever  had  his 
entire  confidence.  He  was  secretive,  and  communicated  no 
more  of  his  own  thoughts  and  purposes  than  he  thought  would 
subserve  the  ends  he  had  in  view.  He  had  the  faculty  of  gain 
ing  the  confidence  of  others  by  apparently  giving  them  his  own, 
and  in  that  way  attached  to  himself  many  friends.  I  saw  much 
of  him  after  we  became  political  associates,  and  can  truthfully 


428  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

say  that  he  never  misled  me  by  word  or  deed.  He  was  truthful, 
compassionate,  and  kind,  but  he  was  one  of  the  shrewdest  men 
I  ever  knew.  To  use  a  common  expression  he  was  "  as  cunning 
as  a  fox."  He  was  a  good  judge  of  men,  their  motives,  and  pur 
poses,  and  knew  how  to  wield  them  to  his  own  advantage.  He 
was  not  aggressive.  Ever  ready  to  take  advantage  of  the  public 
current,  he  did  not  attempt  to  lead  it.  He  did  not  promulgate 
the  article  of  war  enacted  by  Congress  forbidding  army  and 
navy  officers  from  employing  their  forces  to  return  slaves  to 
their  masters,  under  penalty  of  dismissal  from  the  service,  till 
more  than  six  months  after  its  passage.  It  was  more  than  nine 
months  after  the  enactment  of  a  law  by  Congress  declaring  free 
all  slaves  of  rebels  captured,  or  coming  within  the  Union  lines, 
or  found  in  any  place  occupied  by  rebel  forces  and  afterwards 
occupied  by  the  forces  of  the  Union,  that  he  issued  the  pro 
clamation  declaring  free  the  slaves  then  within  the  rebel  lines, 
all  of  whom,  belonging  to  persons  in  rebellion,  were  made  free 
by  the  act  of  Congress  as  soon  as  the  Union  forces  occupied  the 
country,  and  till  then  the  proclamation  could  not  be  enforced. 
When  applied  to  by  a  friend,  just  previous  to  the  meeting  of 
the  convention  at  Baltimore  which  nominated  him  for  a  second 
term,  to  indicate  what  resolutions  or  policy  he  desired  the  con 
vention  to  adopt,  he  declined  to  suggest  any.  These  and  many 
other  illustrations  might  be  given  to  show  that  Mr.  Lincoln  was 
a  follower  and  not  a  leader  in  public  affairs.  Without  attempt 
ing  to  form  or  create  public  sentiment,  he  waited  till  he  saw 
whither  it  tended,  and  then  was  astute  to  take  advantage  of  it. 
Some  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  admirers,  instead  of  regarding  his  want 
of  system,  hesitancy,  and  irresolution  as  defects  in  his  character, 
seek  to  make  them  the  subject  of  praise,  as  in  the  end  the  rebel 
lion  was  suppressed,  and  slavery  abolished,  during  his  admin 
istration,  ignoring  the  fact  that  a  man  of  more  positive  char 
acter,  prompt  and  systematic  action,  might  have  accomplished 
the  same  result  in  half  the  time,  and  with  half  the  loss  of  blood 
and  treasure. 

Mr.  Lincoln  was  by  no  means  the  unsophisticated,  artless 
man  many  took  him  to  be.  Mr.  Swett,  a  lifelong  friend  and 
admirer,  writing  to  Mr.  Herndon,  says:  "One  great  public  mis 
take  of  his  character,  as  generally  received  and  acquiesced  in, 
is  that  he  is  considered  by  the  people  of  this  country  as  a  frank, 


CONCLUSION  429 

guileless,  and  unsophisticated  man.  There  never  was  a  greater 
mistake.  Beneath  a  smooth  surface  of  candor,  and  apparent 
declaration  of  all  his  thoughts  and  feelings,  he  exercised  the 
most  exalted  tact,  and  the  widest  discrimination.  ...  In  deal 
ing  with  men  he  was  a  trimmer,  and  such  a  trimmer  as  the 
world  has  never  seen."  l 

Herndon  in  his  "Lincoln,"  at  page  471,  says:  "He  had  a  way 
of  pretending  to  assure  his  visitor  that  in  the  choice  of  his 
advisers  he  was  free  to  act  as  his  judgment  dictated,  although 
David  Davis,  acting  as  his  manager  at  the  Chicago  Conven 
tion,  had  negotiated  with  the  Pennsylvania  and  Indiana  dele 
gations,  and  assigned  places  in  the  Cabinet  to  Simon  Cameron 
and  Caleb  Smith,  besides  making  other  arrangements  which 
Mr.  Lincoln  was  expected  to  satisfy." 

Another  popular  mistake  is  to  suppose  Mr.  Lincoln  free 
from  ambition.  A  more  ardent  seeker  after  office  never  existed. 
From  the  time  when,  at  the  age  of  twenty-three,  he  announced 
himself  a  candidate  for  the  legislature  from  Sangamon  County, 
till  his  death,  he  was  almost  constantly  either  in  office,  or  strug 
gling  to  obtain  one.  Sometimes  defeated  and  often  successful, 
he  never  abandoned  the  desire  for  office  till  he  had  reached  the 
presidency  the  second  time.  Swett  says,  "He  was  much  more 
eager  for  it  [a  second  nomination]  than  for  the  first,"  and  such 
was  known  to  his  intimate  friends  to  be  the  fact,  though  his 
manner  to  the  public  would  have  indicated  that  he  was  indif 
ferent  to  a  second  nomination.  When  first  a  candidate  for  the 
presidency  Mr.  Herndon  tells  us,  "He  wrote  to  influential 
party  workers  everywhere,"  promising  money  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  delegates  to  the  convention  favoring  his  nomina 
tion. 

While  ardently  devoted  to  the  Union,  Mr.  Lincoln  had  no 
well-defined  plan  for  saving  it,  but  suffered  things  to  drift, 
watching  to  take  advantage  of  events  as  they  occurred.  He  was 
a  judge  of  men  and  knew  how  to  use  them  to  advantage.  He 
brought  into  his  Cabinet  some  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  nation, 
and  left  to  them  the  management  of  their  respective  depart 
ments.  This  country  never  had  an  abler  head  of  the  Treasury 
Department  than  Salmon  P.  Chase.  To  his  skillful  manage 
ment  of  the  finances  the  country  was  indebted  for  the  means 
1  Herndon's  Life  of  Lincoln,  537,  538. 


430  LYMAN  TRUMBULL 

to  carry  on  the  war  of  the  rebellion,  and  bring  it  to  a  successful 
issue.  For  the  distinguished  ability  with  which  the  State 
and  War  Departments  were  managed  during  the  rebellion  the 
country  is  greatly  indebted  to  Mr.  Seward  and  Mr.  Stanton. 
Other  members  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  Cabinet  were  men  of  great 
executive  ability.  Lincoln  was  unmethodical  and  without  exe 
cutive  ability,  but  he  selected  advisers  who  possessed  these 
qualities  in  an  eminent  degree. 

To  sum  up  his  character,  it  may  be  said  that  as  a  man  he  was 
honest,  pure,  kind-hearted,  and  sympathetic;  as  a  lawyer,  clear 
headed,  astute,  and  successful;  as  a  politician,  ambitious, 
shrewd,  and  farseeing;  as  a  public  speaker,  incisive,  clear,  and 
convincing,  often  eloquent,  clothing  his  thoughts  in  the  most 
beautiful  and  attractive  language,  a  logical  reasoner,  and  yet 
most  unmethodical  in  all  his  ways;  as  President  during  a  great 
civil  war  he  lacked  executive  ability,  and  that  resolution  and 
prompt  action  essential  to  bring  it  to  a  speedy  and  successful 
close;  but  he  was  a  philanthropist  and  a  patriot,  ardently 
devoted  to  the  Union  and  the  equality  and  freedom  of  all  men. 
He  presided  over  the  nation  in  the  most  critical  period  of  its  his 
tory,  and  lived  long  enough  to  see  the  rebellion  subdued,  and 
a  whole  race  lifted  from  slavery  to  freedom.  The  fact  that  he 
was  at  the  head  of  the  nation  when  these  great  results  were 
accomplished,  and  of  his  most  cruel  assassination,  before  there 
was  time  to  fully  appreciate  the  great  work  that  had  been  done 
during  his  administration,  will  forever  endear  him  to  the  Ameri 
can  people,  and  hand  his  name  down  to  posterity  as  among  the 
best,  if  not  the  greatest,  of  mankind. 

Another  manuscript,  addressed  to  Mrs.  Gershom 
Jayne,  the  mother  of  the  first  Mrs.  Trumbull,  in  answer 
to  a  communication  from  her,  gives  Trumbull's  views 
on  religion: 

CHICAGO,  Apr.  22,  1877. 

DEAR  MOTHER:  I  scarcely  know  how  to  reply  to  your  texts 
of  Scripture  and  your  solicitude  for  me.  If  the  fervent  prayers 
of  the  righteous  avail,  it  would  seem  as  if  yours  and  those  of 
my  departed  Julia  should  have  their  influence,  and  I  sometimes 
feel  as  if  the  spirit  of  my  dear  Julia  was  even  now  not  far  away. 


CONCLUSION  431 

That  I  am  not  what  I  should  be  is  too  true :  I  feel  it  and  I  know 
it,  and  yet  I  trust  the  influence  and  prayers  of  those  who  have 
loved  me  have  not  been  entirely  thrown  away.  I  have  abund 
ant  reason  to  be  thankful  to  our  Heavenly  Father  for  his  pro 
tection  and  ten  thousand  kindnesses  to  me  which  I  know  I  have 
not  deserved.  How  often  when  the  way  was  dark  before  me 
has  an  unseen  hand  carried  me  safely  through !  And  yef,  whilst 
ever  ready  to  acknowledge  my  own  imperfection  and  impo 
tence,  I  suppose  I  know  nothing  of,  or  at  best  see  but  as  through 
a  glass  dimly,  that  change  of  heart  of  which  the  converted 
speak,  and  which  comes  of  a  faith  it  has  not  been  given  me 
to  possess.  I  certainly  hope  through  the  Saviour's  interposition 
for  a  happy  hereafter,  but  at  the  same  time  am  obliged  to  con 
fess  that  the  way  is  to  me  dark  and  mysterious,  and  by  no 
means  as  discernible  as  it  appears  to  some  others.  I  rejoice 
that  they  can  see  it  clearly  and  wish  that  I  could  too.  .  .  . 
Affectionately  yours, 

LYMAN  TRUMBULL. 

Three  sons  of  Lyman  Trumbull  reached  mature  years : 
Walter,  Perry,  and  Henry.  The  latter  died  unmarried, 
January  20,  1895. 

Walter,  the  eldest,  was  married  September,  1876,  to 
Miss  Hannah  Mather  Slater.  Three  sons  were  born  of 
this  union.  The  first  of  these,  Lyman  Trumbull,  Jr.,  died 
in  infancy.  The  second,  Walter  S.,  was  born  in  1879, 
married  Miss  Marjorie  Skinner,  of  Hartford,  Connecti 
cut,  in  1905,  and  now  resides  in  New  York  City.  The 
third,  Charles  L.,  born  in  1884,  married  in  1910  Miss 
Lucy  Proctor,  of  Peoria,  Illinois,  and  now  resides  in  Chi 
cago.  Walter  Trumbull  died  October  25,  1891. 

Perry  Trumbull  was  married  to  Mary  Caroline  Peck, 
daughter  of  Ebenezer  Peck,  judge  of  the  United  States 
Court  of  Claims,  in  1879.  Four  children  were  born  to 
them:  (1)  Julia  Wright,  married  to  H.  Thompson  Frazer, 
M.D.,  now  resides  at  Asheville,  North  Carolina;  (2) 
Edward  A.,  married  Anna  Whitby,  and  resides  at  Seattle, 


432  LYMAN   TRUMBULL 

Washington;  (3)  Charles  P.,  married,  resides  at  Las 
Vegas,  New  Mexico;  (4)  Selden,  resides  in  Chicago. 
Perry  Trumbull  died  December  10,  1902. 

Mrs.   Mary  Ingraham  Trumbull,   widow  of  Lyman 
Trumbull,  resides  at  Saybrook  Point,  Connecticut. 


THE    END 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Throughout  the  Index,  the  initial  T.,  standing  alone,  represents  the  subject  of  the 
book. 


Abolition  movement,  the,  and  the  murder 
of  Lovejoy,  10. 

Act  of  March  27, 1868,  purpose  of,  328,  329; 
passed  by  Congress,  and  vetoed,  329; 
passed  over  veto,  330;  its  application  to 
McCardle  case  glaringly  unjust,  330. 

Adams,  Charles  Francis,  Seward's  dis 
patches  of  April,  1861,  and  July,  1862,  to, 
210^. ;  proposed  for  Liberal  Republican 
nomination  for  President,  372,  373,  374, 
381 ;  his  attitude  regarding  the  nomina 
tion,  377,  378;  defeated  by  Greeley,  383, 
384 ;  why  Blair  and  Brown  opposed  him, 
385  and  n. ;  a  stronger  candidate  than 
T.,  402,  403;  xxi,  182,  389,  390. 

Adams,  Charles  Francis,  Jr.,  The  Trent 
Affair,  etc.,  349  n. ;  353,  378. 

Adams,  John,  xxiii. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  xxii,  27, 103. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  2d,  nominated  for 
Vice-President  by  dissentient  Demo 
crats  (1872),  394;  declines,  394. 

Akerman,  Amos  T.,  succeeds  Hoar  as 
Attorney-General,  350. 

Alabama,  admission  of,  xxix ;  and  the  13th 
Amendment,  229 ;  order  for  reconstruc 
tion  of,  238. 

Alabama  Claims,  T.  on,  348;  Grant's  great 
service  in  settling,  362. 

Aldrich,  Cyrus,  68. 

Alien  and  Sedition  laws,  xxiii. 

Allen,  G.  T.,  42,  43,  46  n. 

Allen,  Robert,  13. 

Allison,  John,  69. 

Allison,  William  B.,  Senator,  304,  346. 

Altgeld,  John  P.,  Governor,  and  the  Pull 
man  strike,  414. 

Alton,  111.,  T.  removes  to,  21. 

Alton  riot,  the,  8-10. 

American  Bottom,  locus  of  slavery  in  111., 
in  1783, 23. 

American  Historical  Review,  quoted,  174. 

American  Railway  Union,  413. 

Ammen,  Jacob,  General,  206,  208. 

Amnesty,  Johnson's  proclamation  of,  239. 

Amnesty  bill,  debated  in  Senate,  359; 
amended  by  Sumner,  and  rejected,  359; 
reintroduced  and  passed,  359, 360. 

Anderson,  Robert,  Major,  proposed  recall 


of,  from  Sumter,  122,  123;  128, 155.  And 
see  Sumter. 

Andrew,  John  A.,  Governor,  287,  307  n. 

Anthony,  Henry  B.,  Senator,  his  attitude 
on  ousting  of  Sumner  from  Foreign  Af 
fairs  Committee,  347;  314,  364,  366,  367. 

Anti  Ku-Klux  bill.  See  Ku-Klux  bill. 

Anti-Nebraska  Democrats,  in  111.  legisla 
ture,  41  jf. ;  and  the  Senatorial  election 
of  1854,  46  n. 

Archer,  William  B.,  69. 

"Arm-in- Arm  Convention."  See  National 
Union  Convention. 

Armstrong,  postmaster  at  St.  Louis,  81. 

Arnold,  I.  N.,  Congressman,  207. 

Arrests,  arbitrary,  T's  resolution  of  in 
quiry  concerning,  191^.;  censured  by 
Democratic  Convention,  193 ;  license  to 
make,  transferred  to  Stanton,  197 ;  effect 
of  change,  197, 198;  action  of  Democrats 
on,  197;  T.  took  lead  in  stopping,  in  loyal 
states,  422,  423.  And  see  Habeas  corpus. 

Arthur,  Chester  A.,  appointed  Collector 
of  New  York,  368. 

Asay,  E.  G.,  208. 

Ashley,  James  M.,  Congressman,  228  n. 

Atchison,  David  R.,  Senator,  his  advice 
to  Missourians,  52;  49,  54. 

Atkinson,  Edward,  353. 

Atzerodt,  conspirator,  289. 

Babcock,  Orville  E.,  sent  by  Grant  to  San 

Domingo,  342;  362,  369. 
Bacon  Academy,  3. 
Badger,  George  E.,  49. 
Bailey,  G.,  quoted  on  Dred  Scott  case,  83. 
Baker,  Edward  D.,  Senator,  10,  132,  427. 
Baker,  Henry  L.,  42,  43,  46. 
Baldwin,  J.  B.,  and  Lincoln's  offer  to 

evacuate  Sumter,  159,  160;  his  version 

contradicted  by  Botts,  160,  161;  R.  L. 

Dabney's  account  of  interview  of,  with 

Lincoln,  161, 162. 
Bancroft,  George,  wrote  Johnson's  first 

message,  244,  245. 
Banks,  Nathaniel  P.,  General,  36,  87,  102, 

232,  233. 
Barney,  Hiram,  Collector  of  New  York, 

147,  181, 182. 


436 


INDEX 


Barrett 


Barrett,  A.  B.,  quoted,  117. 

Bates,  Edward,  candidate  for  Republican 
nomination  in  1860,  103;  and  enforce 
ment  of  Confiscation  Act,  177;  104,  150. 

Bayard,  James  A.,  Senator,  200,  201,  228. 

Bayard,  Thomas  F.,  Senator,  366. 

Beecher,  Henry  W.,  287. 

Belknap,  William  W.,  General,  362. 

Belleville,  I11..T.  settles  at,  5, 6;  described 
by  Dickens,  14,  15. 

Belleville  Advocate,  the,  323. 

Belmont,  August,  quoted,  on  Liberal  Re 
publican  movement,  373,  374. 

Benjamin,  Judah  P.,  Senator,  on  the  Dred 
Scott  case,  82;  his  reply  to  Douglas,  93, 
96;  contrasts  Douglas  and  Lincoln,  96. 

Benton,  Thomas  H.,  Senator,  126. 

Bigelow,  Israel  B.,  quoted,  217. 

Bigelow,  John^his  Diary  quoted,  403  n. 

Bingham,  John  A.,  Congressman,  opposes 
Civil  Rights  bill,  271,  272,  281;  on  Re 
construction  Committee,  281 ;  proposes 
amendmenttoConstitution,282;  amends 
Georgia  bill,  298, 299 ;  196,  304, 309, 339, 424. 

Bird,  Frank  W.,  quoted,  on  Cincinnati 
nominations,  385  n. ;  387. 

Birney,  James  G.,  37,  40. 

Bishop,  Mr.,  killed  in  Alton  riot,  9. 

Bissell,  W.  H.,  Governor,  quoted,  10,  69, 
70,  74,  88,  427. 

Black,  Jere.  S.,  counsel  for  McCardle,  327 

Blaine,  James  G.,  interview  of,  with  au 
thor,  on  revenue  reform,  354. 

Blair,  Austin,  Congressman,  397,  398. 

Blair,  F.  P.,  General,  Democratic  candi 
date  for  Vice-Presldent  (1868),  333  ;  and 
the  Cincinnati  convention,  385  and  n. ; 
37,  120,  382. 

Blair,  Gist,  quoted,  220  n. 

Blair,  Montgomery,  quoted,  on  Cameron's 
appointment,  151 ;  on  Cameron's  eman 
cipation  hobby,  172  n. ;  his  resignation 
as  Postmaster  General  and  Fremont's 
withdrawal,  220  and  n. ;  on  reconstruc 
tion,  293 ;  83,  112,  157,  234,  307  n. 

Blatchford,  Samuel  J.,  Justice,  275. 

Blodgett,  Henry  W.,  419. 

Blow,  Henry  T.,  281. 

Bon  if  ant,  U.  S.  Marshal,  195. 

Booth,  J.  Wilkes,  289. 

Border  Ruftians.  See  Missourians  in 
Kansas. 

Borders,  Sarah,  28,  29. 

Borie,  Adolph,  appointed  Secretary  of 
Navy,  337  ;  resigns,  337. 

Boston  Advertiser,  300. 

Botts,  John  Minor,  his  Great  Rebellion 
quoted  on  Lincoln's  offer  to  evacuate 
Sumter,  159, 160 ;  denies  Baldwin's  story, 
160, 161. 

Boutwell,  George  S.,  Congressman,  ap 


pointed  Secretary  of  Treasury,  336,  337  ; 
and  the  Leet  and  Stocking  scandal,  364, 
365  ;  281,  291,  304,  309,  339. 

Bowles,  Samuel,  86,  353,  387. 

Bradley,  Joseph  P.,  Justice,  275,  276,  409. 

Brainard,  Daniel,  80. 

Brayman,  Mason,  13. 

Breckinridge,  John  C.,  elected  Vice-Presi- 
dent  (1856),  70;  nominated  for  President 
(1860),  by  seceding  delegates,  96. 

Brinkerhoff,  R.,  353. 

Brooks,  Preston  S.,  Congressman,  his  as 
sault  on  Sumner,  65. 

"  Brother  Jonathan,"  2  n. 

Brown,  Albert  G.,  Senator,  63. 

Brown,  B.  Gratz,  elected  governor  of  Mo. 
as  a  liberal,  352;  candidate  for  Liberal 
Republican  nomination,  377,  378;  arrives 
at  Cincinnati,  382;  withdraws  in  favor 
of  Greeley,  383;  nominated  for  Vice- 
President,  384 ;  divers  views  of  liis 
course,  384,  385  and  n. ;  nominated  by 
Democrats,  394 ;  220,  285,  389,  402. 

Brown,  George  T.,  80. 

Brown,  John,  his  raid  on  Harper's  Ferry, 
96-100 ;  author's  impression  of,  97 ;  his 
own  view  of  his  mission,  97,  98 :  T.  on 
moral  and  legal  aspects  of  the  raid,  98, 
99;  53. 

Brown,  Joseph,  375. 

Brown,  William  G.,  quoted,  xxxiv. 

Brown,  W.  H.,  87. 

Browning,  Orville  H.,  Secretary  of  In 
terior,  his  views  on  question  of  territori 
alizing  states,  291;  92,  194,  197,  285,  307. 

Brownlow,  W.  G.,  reconstruction  gover 
nor  of  Tenn.,  237. 

Bryan,  Silas  L.,  375. 

Bryan,  William  J.,  student  in  T.'s  office, 
407 ;  author's  meeting  with  (1893),  413. 

Bryant,  John  H.,  quoted,  67  and  n. ;  375. 

Bryant,  William  Cullen,  refuses  to  sup 
port  Greeley,  385  ;  correspondence  with 
T.  thereon,  386,  387;  139,  140,  141,  145.287, 
353,  375,  391. 

Buchanan,  James,  elected  President,  70; 
appoints  Walker  Governor  of  Kansas, 
71 ;  and  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  73; 
his  message  to  Congress  on  Topeka  and 
Lecompton  constitutions,  answered  by 
T.,  76,  77,  and  by  Douglas,  77;  said  to 
favor  rejection  of  pro-slavery  clause, 
78;  recommends  admission  of  Kansas 
under  Lecompton  Constitution,  81 ;  his 
message  thereon  discussed  by  T.,  81,  82 ; 
Chief  Justice  Caton  on  his  attitude  to 
ward  Lecomptonism.  84, 85  ;  and  Justice 
McLean,  122,  123  and  n. ;  policy  of  his 
government  toward  secessionists,  127, 
128;  takes  sides  for  the  Union  under 
pressure,  128 ;  74,  75,  113. 


Civil  Rights  bill 


INDEX 


437 


Buchanan  Democrats  in  111.,  adopt  name 
of  National  Democracy,  89;  Lincoln 
quoted  concerning,  90 ;  their  small  poll, 
91 ;  their  poll  in  I860  even  smaller,  96. 

Buckalew,  Charles  R.,  Senator,  285,  329. 

Buckingham,  William  A.,  Senator,  366. 

Bull  Run,  first  battle  of,  described  by  T. 
in  letters  to  Mrs.  T.,  165-167. 

Bullock,  Rufus  P.,  reconstruction  gover 
nor  of  Georgia,  297,  298,  299,  300. 

Burchard,  Horatio  C.,  Congressman,  354. 

Burke,  Edmund,  358. 

Burlingame,  Anson,  86,  88. 

Burnside,  Ambrose  E.,  General,  orders 
arrest  of  Vallandigham,  204;  his  pro 
ceedings  against  the  Chicago  Times, 
206-209;  his  order  revoked  by  Lincoln, 
208;  defeated  at  Fredericksburg,  211. 

Butler,  Benjamin  F.,  Congressman,  re 
ports  Georgia  bill,  298 ;  author  of  10th 
article  of  impeachment,  311;  304,  309, 
359,  362. 

Butler,  Fanny  Kemble,  xxxiv. 

Butler,  William,  quoted,  148;  149,  151. 

Cabinet,  Pres.  Johnson's,  discussion  of 
Tenure-of-Office  bill  by,  302, 303;  unani 
mous  in  advising  veto,  303,  311. 

Cabinet  officers,  and  the  Tenure-of -Office 
Act,  301,  302. 

Cadwalader,  George,  195. 

Calhoun,  John,  and  the  Lecompton  Con 
stitution,  73  ;  18,  75,  84. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  Senator,  and  the  doc 
trine  of  Nullification,  xxv  and  n., 
xxvii;  4. 

Cameron,  Simon,  history  of  his  inclusion 
in  Lincoln's  Cabinet,  142  ff. ;  visits  Lin 
coln  at  Springfield,  144  ;  Lincoln  prom 
ises  portfolio  to,  144,429;  urgent  opposi 
tion  to,  from  McClure,  T.,  and  others, 
144,  145,  146,  147^. ;  and  Fremont,  172  ; 
his  report  in  favor  of  freeing  and  arm 
ing  slaves  suppressed  by  Lincoln,  172 
and  n. ;  and  the  War  Department 
frauds,  178  Jf. ;  and  T.  A.  Scott,  184, 185; 
Nicolay  and  Hay  on  causes  of  his  leav 
ing  Cabinet,  185, 186 ;  made  Minister  to 
Russia,  186;  McClure  on  his  dismissal, 
186,  187 ;  censured  by  House  in  Cum- 
mings  affair,  186;  his  confirmation  as 
Minister  to  Russia  opposed  by  T.  and 
others,  187,  188,  but  favored  by  Sumner, 
188;  his  statement  to  Hamlin,  188;  vote 
on  Confirmation  of,  189  ;  how  he  repaid 
Sumner,  189 ;  108,  343,  371. 

Carlile,  John  S.,  Senator,  opposes  habeas 
corpus  suspension  act,  199. 

Carlin,  Thomas,  11. 

Carpenter,  Matthew  H.,  Senator,  counsel 
in  McCardle  case,  327,  329;  300,  358;  re 


port  on  Louisiana  election,  405 ;  speech 
before  Electoral  Commission,  411. 

Carpetbaggers,  and  the  San  Domingo 
treaty,  350;  241. 

Cass,  Lewis,  Senator,  his  Nicholson  letter 
on  squatter  sovereignty,  94;  48,  63,  125. 

Castle  Pinckney,  129. 

Catiline,  steamer,  179, 180,  181,  182. 

Caton,  John  D.,  quoted,  on  Buchanan's 
attitude  toward  Lecomptonism,  84,  85 ; 
20. 

Caulfield,  B.  G.,  208. 

Cavalry,  fraudulent  contracts  for  pur 
chase  of  horses  for,  182,  183 

Century  Magazine,  cited,  245  n.,  307  n., 
321  n. 

Chandler,  Zachariah,  Senator,  and  T.'s 
connection  with  the  McCardle  case,  331, 
332 ;  150,  166,  233,  355,  363,  371. 

Channing,  William  Ellery,  xxxii. 

Charleston  Convention  of  1860,  107. 

Chase,  Salmon  P.,  Chief  Justice,  quoted, 
67;  and  Cameron's  dismissal,  186;  pre 
sides  at  impeachment  trial,  309  ;  on  the 
llth  article,  311 ;  his  ruling  on  evidence 
of  Johnson's  intent  to  make  a  case  for 
the  Supreme  Court,  overruled  by  the 
Senate,  313;  vote  for,  in  Cincinnati  con 
vention  (1872),  383;  T's  estimate  of,  as 
Secretary  of  Treasury,  429,430;  79,  102, 
103,  107,  145,  147,  148, 150,  151,  170,  234,240, 
274,  289,  320,  372. 

Cheever,  Rev.  George  B.,  220. 

Cherokee  Tract,  the,  5. 

Chesnut,  James,  99. 

Chicago,  rioting  at,  in  Pullman  strike, 
414  ;  troops  ordered  to,  414  ;  meeting  at, 
addressed  by  T.,  414,  415. 

Chicago  Advance,  T.'s  article  in,  on  re 
striction  of  suffrage,  294. 

Chicago  Bar  Association,  and  T.'s  death, 
418,  419. 

Chicago  Evening  Journal,  quoted,  on  T.'s 
speech  on  Chicago  Times  matter,  208; 
93. 

Chicago  Times,  publication  of,  forbidden 
by  Burnside,  206-209;  meeting  of  protest 
against  the  order,  207 ;  the  order  revoked 
by  Lincoln,  208  ;  415,  424,  425. 

Chicago  Tribune,  quoted,  on  the  duty  of 
Senators  in  impeachment  trial,  315,  316; 
372,  389,  390. 

Cincinnati,  Liberal  Republican  Conven 
tion  at  (1872),  374.  ff. ;  how  composed,  379, 
380 ;  difficulties  of,  on  tariff  question,  re 
sult  in  compromise,  381,  382;  Greeley 
nominated  for  President  by,  383,  384. 

Cincinnati  Commercial,  372. 

Citizens  of  U.  S.,  definition  of,  in  14th 
Amendment,  283. 

Civil  Rights  bill,  introduced  by  T.,  257; 


438 


INDEX 


Civil  Rights  bill 


T.'s  proposed  amendment  to,  debated  in 
Senate,  265^".;  passes  Senate,  271,  and 
House,  272;  vetoed  by  Johnson,  272; 
passed  over  veto,  272, 273 ;  held  constitu 
tional  by  Circuit  Court  of  U.  S.,  274;  in 
Supreme  Court,  275  ff. ;  Bingham's  ob- 
jections;to,  281 ;  relation  of  14th  Amend 
ment  to,  282, 283 ;  T.'s  course  on,  424, 425. 

Civil  Rights  Cases,  109  U.  S.,  275,  276. 

Civil  service,  demoralization  of,  under 
Grant,  341,  342. 

Civil-service  reform,  T.  on,  359,  376. 

Civil  War,  the,  could  not  have  been 
averted,  xxi,  xxii. 

Clark,  Daniel,  Senator,  262,  264. 

Clay,  Clement  C.,  Senator,  his  farewell 
speech  in  Senate,  121 ;  100. 

Clay,  Henry,  xxvi,  xxxi,  27,  39,  125. 

Clayton,  John  M.,  63  n. 

Cleveland,  Grover,  orders  troops  to  Chi 
cago,  414 ;  413. 

Clifford,  Nathan,  Justice  Sup.  Court,  289, 
409. 

Clingman,  Thomas  L.,  Senator,  419. 

Cochrane,  John,  General,  nominated  for 
Vice-President  by  anti-Lincoln  Repub 
licans  (1864),  219,  220. 

Cole,  Cornelius,  Senator,  314. 

Coles,  Edward,  and  the  "Anti-conven 
tion  "  Contest  in  111.,  27,  28. 

Colfax,  Schuyler,  elected  Vice-President 
(1872),  333  ;  and  Grant,  393,  394;  and  the 
Credit-Mobilier,  402 ;  80,  331,  359. 

Collamer,  Jacob,  Senator,  speech  of,  on 
Kansas  affairs,  65;  attacks  T.'s  Confis 
cation  bill,  173,  174 ;  55,  102,  198. 

Collins,  James  H.,  30. 

Colonization  Society,  xxxi. 

Compromise  of  1850,  xxi,  34,  124,  125. 

Confederate  States.   See  States,  seceding. 

Confiscation  bill,  concerning  slaves  only, 
introduced  by  T.,  and  passed  by  Con 
gress,  168. 

Confiscation  bill  (II),  introduced  by  T. 
(Dec.  1861),  173,  176;  debated  all  the  ses 
sion,  173  jf. ;  report  of  Conference  com 
mittee  on,  adopted,  175;  Lincoln  pro 
poses  to  veto,  175  ;  passage  of  joint  res 
olution  interpreting,  175;  the  first  step 
toward  full  emancipation,  176;  trifling 
proceeds  of  confiscation  under,  176 ;  con 
troversy  over  enforcement  of,  176, 177. 

Congress,  adopts  Missouri  Compromise, 
xxx ;  passes  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  37; 
Pres.  Pierce's  special  message  to,  on 
Kansas  affairs,  55;  Pres.  Buchanan's 
first  message  to,  76;  Buchanan  recom 
mends  admission  of  Kansas  to,  81;  passes 
first  Confiscation  bill,  168;  debate  on 
second  Confiscation  bill  in,  173  ff. ; 
Pres.  Johnson's  first  message  to,  244,245; 


power  of,  to  pass  laws  for  ordinary 
administration  of  justice  in  states,  258- 
260,  265  ff. ;  attacked  by  Johnson,  286; 
radicals  in,  and  the  Milligan  case,  289, 
290 ;  makes  general  of  the  army  virtually 
independen fcof  the  President,  291 ;  meas 
ures  of  reconstruction  passed  by,  over 
vetoes,  291-295 ;  and  impeachment  of 
Johnson,  303^.  ;  intensity  of  contest  in, 
312;and  theMcCardle  case,328-330;  passes 
Act  of  March  27,  1868,  over  veto,  330; 
and  the  15th  Amendment,  338-340 ;  Pres. 
Grant's  message  to,  on  Ku-Klux-Klans, 
356 ;  and  the  Amnesty  bill,  359,  360  ; 
and  the  Credit-Mobilier,  402.  And  see 
House  of  Representatives,  Reconstruc 
tion,  Committee  on,  and  Senate. 

Congress  of  the  Confederation,  and  Jeffer 
son's  ordinance  concerning  slavery 
(1784),  xxviii,  xxix ;  passes  Ordinance  of 
1787,  24,  25,  29. 

Congressional  Globe  of  1860-61, 114. 

Conkling,  Roscoe,  Senator,  281,  331,  339, 
355,  362,  363. 

Connecticut,  opposed  to  nomination  of 
Seward,  103. 

Constitution  of  U.  S.,  obstacles  to  ratifi 
cation  of,  xxii  and  n. ;  its  "  educational 
work,"  xxvi,  xxvii;  and  the  power  to 
free  slaves,  222,  223;  projects  of  amend 
ing,  in  that  regard,  223;  the  James  F. 
Wilson  resolution,  223 ;  the  Hender 
son  resolution,  223,  reported  by  T.  in 
amended  form,  224. 

Amendment  XIII,  reported  by  T.  in 
Senate,  224;  his  speech  thereon,  224-226; 
favored  by  Henderson  and  R.  Johnson, 
227  jadopted  by  both  branches,  228;  scene 
in  House  described  by  Julian,  228  and  n. ; 
ratified  by  States,  229,  252;  Seward's  in 
terpretation  of,  229 ;  discussed  in  con 
nection  with  Freedmen's  Bureau  bill, " 
258,  260;  and  the  Civil  Rights  bill,  267, 
269,  270;  construed  by  Supreme  Court 
in  U.S.  v.  Harris,  275,  358,  and  in  Civil 
Rights  Cases,  276,  277;  T.'s  connection 
with,  422. 

Amendment  XIV,  construed  by  Su 
preme  Court  in  U.S.  r.  Harris,  275,  358, 
and  in  Civil  Rights  Cases,  276;  prepared 
and  reported  by  Joint  Committee  on 
Reconstruction,  282,  283;  provisions  of, 
283;  passes  both  houses,  283;  history  of 
framing  of,  284  n. ;  Southern  States  re 
fuse  to  ratify,  and  why,  287;  and  the 
power  of  Congress  to  enforce  ordinary 
civil  law  in  the  states,  356,  357,  358. 

Amendment  A'  r,  construed  by  Su 
preme  Court  in  U.S.  v.  Harris,  275,  358; 
history  of,  338-340;  passed  by  Congress, 
339;  text  of,  340;  ratified  by  States,  340. 


Dixon 


INDEX 


439 


"Convention  party,"  the,  attempts  to 
amend  Illinois  constitution  to  legalize 
slavery,  25,  26 ;  defeat  of,  27. 

Cook,  Burton  C.,  41,  43,  45,  46  n.,  93. 

Cook,  Daniel  P.,  in  the  "anti-conven 
tion  "  contest,  27,  28;  Cook  County,  111., 
named  for,  27. 

Cooper  Union,  Liberal  Republican  meet 
ing  at,  376,  377. 

Copperheadism,  Vallandigham  the  incar 
nation  of,  203. 

Corbett,  Henry  W.,  Senator,  314. 

Corning,  Erastus,  205. 

Corwin,  Thomas,  Congressman,  112, 117. 

Cotton-gin,  results  of  invention  of,  xxxii. 

Cowan,  Edgar,  Senator,  attacks  T.'s  Con 
fiscation  bill,  173;  his  great  speech  in 
favor  of  habeas  corpus  suspension  act, 
201;  on  Civil  Rights  bill,  269,  271,  272; 
146,  261,  262,  285,  286,  323. 

Cox,  Jacob  D.,  appointed  Secretary  of  In 
terior,  337,  338;  why  he  resigned,  349, 
350;  353,373. 

Credit-Mobilier  scandal,  the,  401,  402. 

Cresswell,  John  A.  J.,  appointed  Post 
master  General.  337. 

Crittenden,  John  J.,  Senator,  his  compro 
mise  measure,  debated  and  rejected 
by  Senate,  115-117  ;  48,  60,  66. 

Crittenden  Compromise,  debated,  115, 116; 
T's  speech  against,  115, 123-138;  rejected 
by  Senate,  117;  letters  toT.  from  Illi- 
noisans  concerning,  117-119. 

Cullom,  Shelby  M.,  Senator,  quoted,  293; 
defeats  T.  for  governor  of  111.,  412. 

Cuminings,  Alexander,  one  of  Cameron's 
agents,  143,  178;  the  leading  figure  in 
War  Dep't  scandal,  178./T. ;  a  candidate 
for  office  under  Johnson,  181  n. 

Curry,  J.  L.  M.,  letter  of,  to  Doolittle,  as 
to  Southern  views,  255,  256. 

Curtin,  Andrew  G.,  Governor,  vote  for  in 
Cincinnati  Convention,  383;  106,  144, 
374,  377,  378. 

Curtis,  Benjamin  R.,  of  counsel  for  Pres. 
Johnson,  309. 

Curtis,  George  W..  338,  368. 

Curtis  Commission  on  Civil  Service  Re 
form,  376. 

Dabney,  Rev.  R.  L.,  his  account  of  the 
Lincoln-Baldwin  interview,  161,  162. 

"Danites."  See  Buchanan  Democrats. 

Darrow,  Clarence  S.,  quoted,  on  T.'s  "  so 
cialistic  trend,"  425,  426  ;  414. 

Davidson,  G.  C.,  179,  180. 

Davis,  David,  and  Cameron's  appoint 
ment,  142  ff.;  bargains  with  delegates 
from  Penn.  and  Ind.,  142,  429  ;  his  influ 
ence  with  Lincoln,  143  and  n. ;  opinion 
of,  in  Milligan  case,  289 ;  candidate  for 


Liberal  Republican  nomination  at  Cin 
cinnati,  377,  378 ;  his  candidacy  objected 
to  by  editors,  380,  381 ;  and  the  Electoral 
Commission  (1877),  409 ;  178,  384. 

Davis,  Garrett,  Senator,  on  Civil  Rights 
bill,  270;  161,234. 

Davis,  Henry  Winter,  Congressman,  op 
poses  Lincoln's  reelection,  220. 

Davis,  Jefferson,  and  "  Squatter  Sover 
eignty,  "94,  95 ;  his  resolutions  aimed  at 
Douglas's  nomination,  95 ;  not  a  hot 
head,  110;  his  speech  of  Jan.  10,  1861, 
110;  his  last  speeches  in  Senate,  114, 
115 ;  his  farewell  speech,  121 ;  his  Rise 
and  Fall  of  the  Confederate  States, 
123  n. ;  83. 

Dawes,  Henry  L.,  Congressman,  on  pur 
chases  of  cavalry  horses,  182,  183 ;  on 
corruption  in  government  service,  184; 
replies  to  Cameron's  statement  to  Hain- 
lin,  188,  189;  304,  354. 

Dayton,  William  L.,  Senator,  69,  142. 

Debs,  Eugene  V.,  and  the  Pullman  strike, 
413-415;  T.  counsel  for,  414,  415. 

Delahay,  M.  W.,  opposition  to  his  ap 
pointment  as  district  judge,  213,  214; 
appointed,  impeached,  and  resigns,  214; 
100,  101  and  n. 

Dement,  Isaac  T.,  on  affairs  in  Kansas,  53. 

Democratic  National  Convention  at  Bal 
timore  (1860),  nominates  Douglas,  96; 
Southern  delegates  secede  from,  96; 
107;  (1872)  adopts  platform  and  candi 
date  of  Liberal  Republicans,  394. 

Democratic  party,  in  North,  split  by  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  37. 

Democrats,  condemn  suspension  of  ha 
beas  corpus  and  arbitrary  arrests,  194, 
197;  in  Senate,  oppose  habeas  corpus 
suspension  bill,  198,  199,  and  filibuster 
against  it,  200-203;  in  North,  protest; 
against  Vallandigham's  trial  and  sen 
tence,  205;  in  Congress,  oppose  13th 
Amendment,  228,  but  not  unanimously, 
228  n. ;  union  of,  with  Liberal  Republi 
cans,  suggested  by  M.  D.  Sands,  353; 
sympathy  of,  with  that  movement, 
372.#'.,  379;  dissentient  (in  1872),  nomi 
nate  O'Conor  and  Adams,  394. 

Denver,  John  A.,  appointed  Governor  of 
Kansas,  73. 

Develin,  John  E.,  179. 

Dexter,  Wirt,  208. 

Dickens,  Charles,  describes  Belleville,  111., 
in  American  Notes,  14,  15. 

Disfranchisement,  chief  cause  of  bad 
conditions  in  South,  356. 

Dixon,  Archibald,  Senator,  and  repeal  of 
Missouri  Compromise,  34;  49. 

Dixon,  James,  Senator,  opposes  inquiry 
as  to  arbitrary  arrests,  192, 193 ;  his  vote 


440 


INDEX 


Dixon 


against  impeachment,  323 ;  247,  261,  264, 
265,  285,  313. 

Dodge,  Augustus  C.,  Senator,  35. 

Dodge,  Grenville  M.,  General,  227,  334  n., 
394. 

Dodge,  William  E.,  365. 

Doolittle,  James  R.,  Senator,  on  Tenure- 
of-Office  bill,  303  ;  his  vote  against  im 
peachment,  323;  his  resignation  de 
manded,  323 ;  150,  194,  220,  233,  247,  261, 
273  n.,  285,  313,  329,  419,  423. 

Dougherty,  John,  18,  89,  90. 

Douglas,  Robert  M.,  32 n. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  appointed  to  111. 
Supreme  Court,  10;  elected  U.  S.  Sena 
tor,  19;  his  early  career,  32  and  n.,  33; 
his  position  in  the  Democratic  party, 
33;  his  personal  appearance,  33  ;  his  tal 
ents  and  character,  33  ;  reports  Ne 
braska  bill,  33  ;  accepts  Dixon  Amend 
ment  repealing  Missouri  Compromise, 
34  ;  offers  amendment  dividing  the  ter 
ritory,  34  ;  his  reasons,  35,  and  why  not 
convincing,  35,  36 ;  not  a  pro-slavery 
man,  36;  his  reasons  for  repealing  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  36,  37  ;  Lincoln's  re 
ply  to  his  Springfield  speech  (1854),  39, 
40  and  n. ;  and  the  senatorial  election 
of  1854,  46 n.;  his  report  on  affairs  in 
Kansas,  55;  attached  by  T.,56;  his  so 
phistry,  57,  58,  62  ;  his  debate  with  T., 
59#".;  declares  T.  not  a  Democrat,  60, 
66;  further  debate  with  T.  on  Kansas, 
63 ff. ;  T.  a  match  for,  in  debate,  65,  66; 
denounces  Cabinet  conspiracy  regard 
ing  referendum  on  Lecompton  Consti 
tution,  72, 73 ;  his  motion  for  that  action, 
74,  75;  his  anti-Lecompton  speech,  77, 
78 ;  for  the  first  time,  opposes  wishes  of 
South,  77  ;  was  he  sincere  ?  77,  78 ;  his 
lack  of  principle,  78;  contemplates  alli 
ance  with  Republicans,  78-80;  opposes 
English  bill  for  admission  of  Kansas, 
84;  his  attitude  toward  slavery,  78,  86; 
his  aid  indispensable  in  defeating  Le 
compton  bill,  86 ;  appeals  to  imagination 
of  Eastern  Republicans,  86  ;  distrusted 
by  Republicans  of  111.,  86-88,  91,  92  ;  his 
instability,  88;  his  campaign  for  reelec 
tion  in  1858,  89  ff. ;  his  health  impaired, 
89;  reaffirms  doctrine  of  Squatter  Sover 
eignty,  94 ;  answered  by  J.  Davis,  95 ; 
his  speech  of  May  15, 18t>0,  95,  answered 
by  Benjamin,  95, 96 ;  nominated  for  Pre 
sident  at  Charleston,  and  by  one  faction 
at  Baltimore,  96 ;  favors  Crittenden 
Compromise,  116;  his  views  on  causes  of 
disunion,  116,  117;  his  last  days  devoted 
to  the  Union,  152,  153;  speaks  to  111. 
legislature,  153  ;  his  influence  alone 
saves  Southern  111.,  153;  his  death,  153; 


T.'s  eulogy  of,  153,  154;  G.  Welles's  ac 
count  of  his  attitude  in  1861,  and  his  in 
terview  with  Seward,  163,  164  ;  42,  47, 49, 
76,  85,  100,  104,  107,  108,  109,  427. 

Douglass,  Frederick,  236,  237. 

Drake,  Charles  D.,  Senator,  296,  298,  352. 

Dred  Scott  case,  opinion  of  Supreme 
Court,  criticized  by  T.,  82;  64. 

Drummond,  Thomas,  Justice,  enjoins  ex 
ecutor  of  Burnside's  order  against  Chi 
cago  Times,  206;  his  order  disregarded, 
207;  10,208,427. 

Dubois,  Jesse  K.,  quoted,  79,  87,  216,  217  ; 
213,  375. 

Duncan,  Joseph,  Governor,  11. 

Dunning,  William  A.,  his  .Reconstruction, 
quoted,  274,  321  n. ;  244. 

Durell,  Edward  H.,  Justice,  and  the  con 
tested  election  in  Louisiana,  404. 

Durkee,  Charles,  Senator,  150. 

Dyer,  Thomas,  91. 

Eaton,  Major,  178. 

Edmunds,  George  F.,  Senator,  339,  346, 
358,  363. 

Edwards,  Ninian,  Governor,  11,  45. 

Electoral  Commission  (1877),  composition 
of,  409;  decision  of,  410,  411;  its  pur 
pose,  "  not  to  do  justice  between  man 
and  man,  but  to  save  the  Republic,"  411. 

Eliot,  Thomas  D.,  172. 

Ellsworth,  Oliver,  xxii  n. 

Emancipation,  Seward  on  actual  date  of, 
222;  doubt  regarding  President's  power 
in  relation  to,  222,  223.  And  see  Slavery, 
Slaves. 

Emancipation  movement,  history  of, 
xxviii. 

Emancipation  Proclamation,  issued,  200; 
distasteful  to  Democrats,  200 ;  force  and 
extent  of,  222;  doubt  as  to  its  legal  ef 
fect,  229,  230. 

Embargo,  the,  xxiv. 

Emerson,  Dr.,  Dred  Scott's  master,  82. 

Emigrant  Aid  Co.  (Worcester),  50,  59  n. 

Emigrant  Aid  societies,  59  n. 

Emory,  William  H.,  General,  9th  article 
of  impeachment  based  on  alleged  con 
versation  of  Johnson  with,  310. 

England,  mission  to,  offered  to  T.,  347, 
348,  and  declined,  348;  T.'s  speech  on 
claims  against,  348,  349;  and  demands 
surrender  of  Mason  and  Slidell,  349 
and  n. 

English,  William  H.,  Congressman,  his 
bill  for  admission  of  Kansas,  passed  by 
Congress,  83,  84,  but  rejected  by  people, 
84. 

Equal  Rights  Act  (1875)  held  unconstitu 
tional  by  Supreme  Court,  275. 

Europe,  and  Lincoln's  death,  231. 


Government  contracts 


INDEX 


441 


Evarts,  William  M.,  of  counsel  for  Pres. 
Johnson,  309. 

Farragut,  David  G.,  Admiral,  221. 

Federalist  party,  xxiii. 

Fenton,  Reuben  E.,  386,  390. 

Fessenden,  WilliamP., Senator,  Chairman 
of  Reconstruction  Committee,  281,  282; 
opposes  conviction  of  Johnson,  313; 
abused  by  radicals,  313;  "  read  out "  of 
Republican  party,  324 ;  called  upon  to 
resist  Greenback  heresy  in  Maine,  324 ; 
his  death  and  character,  324 ;  T's  eulogy 
of,  324,  325 ;  82,  83,  89,  102,  168,  194,  202, 
287,  292,  316,  317,  335. 

Field,  Alexander  P.,  11. 

Field,  D.  D.,  147. 

Field,  Stephen  J.,  Justice,  275,  289,  409. 

Fillmore,  Millard,  candidate  for  Pres., 
in  1856,  70;  92,  108. 

Finkelnburg,  Gustavus  A.,  Congressman, 
354. 

Fish,  Hamilton,  appointed  Secretary  of 
State,  335;  letter  of,  to  T.,  offer  ing  Eng 
lish  mission,  347,  348;  362. 

Flack,  Horace  E.,  history  of  the  14th 
Amendment,  284  n. 

Florida,  and  the  13th  Amendment,  229; 
order  for  reconstruction  of,  238;  dis 
puted  returns  from  (1876),  408  ff. 

Flournoy,  Charles  G.,  212. 

Floyd,  John  B.,  Secretary  of  War,  resigns, 
128 ;  130. 

Fogg,  George  G.,  144,  146. 

Foot,  Solomon,  Senator,  168,  261,  263. 

Ford,  Thomas,  historian  of  111.,  quoted, 
11;  as  governor,  requests  T.'s  resigna 
tion  as  Secretary  of  State,  12  and  n., 
13;  18. 

Foreign  Relations,  Senate  Committee  on, 
reorganization  of,  to  punish  Sumner, 
343->347. 

"  Forever,"  meaning  of,  in  Missouri  Com 
promise  Act,  62,  63  n. 

Forney,  John  W.,  300,  342. 

Forsyth,  John,  Senator,  xxvii,  156. 

Foster,  Lafayette  S.,  Senator,  189,  273. 

Fouke,  Philip  B.,  38. 

Fowler,  Joseph  S.,  Senator,  285,  314,  316, 
317. 

Free-silver,  T.  a  believer  in,  413. 

Free  Soilers,  in  1854,  40;  nucleus  of  the 
Republican  party,  41. 

Free  State  men,  in  minority  in  Kansas  in 
1855,  49,  51 ;  convention  of,  55;  refuse  to 
take  part  in  election  of  constitutional 
convention,  71,  72 ;  elect  majority  of 
territorial  legislature,  72. 

Free  trade,  meaning  of,  in  1871,  355. 

Freedmen's  Bureau,  powers  of,  257,  258. 

Freedmen's  Bureau  bill,  introduced  by 


T.,  257  ;  provisions  of,  257,  258  ;  vetoed 
by  Johnson,  260, 261 ;  fails  to  pass  Senate 
over  veto,  261 ;  T.'s  course  on,  423. 

Freeport,  111.,  joint  debate  between  Lin 
coln  and  Douglas  at,  94  n.,  96. 

Frelinghuysen,  Frederick  T.,  Senator, 
314,  316,  347  n. 

Fremont,  John  C.,  Republican  nominee 
for  Pres.,  69 ;  his  defeat  fortunate  for 
the  country,  70;  candidate  for  nomina 
tion  in  1860, 103;  his  order  emancipating 
slaves  revoked  by  Lincoln,  169,  170,  171; 
nominated  for  Pres.  by  Anti-Lincoln 
Republicans  (1864),  219, 220  ;  withdrawn, 
220;  connection  between  his  withdrawal 
and  Mr.  Blair's  retirement,  220  and  n. ; 
141,  194. 

French,  Augustus  C.,  Governor,  18. 

French  Revolution,  effect  of,  on  parties 
in  U.  S.,  xxiii. 

Fugitive  Slave  Law,  114. 

Galloway,  Samuel,  quoted,  75 ;  letter  to  T. 
on  Republican  grievances  against 
Grant,  371. 

Garfield,  James  A.,  General,  412. 

Garrison,  William  L.,  his  crusade  mis 
takenly  interpreted  at  the  south,  xxxiii; 
supports  Lincoln's  reconstruction  plan, 
235,  236;  388. 

Gary,  Mrs.  F.  C.,  letter  of,  to  T.,  278,  and 
his  reply,  279. 

Gaston,  William,  Judge,  270. 

Geary,  John  W.,  Governor,  53,  72. 

"  General  order  "  system  in  N.  Y.  custom 
house,  364^. 

Genius  of  Universal  Emancipation,  the, 
xxxi. 

Georgia,  and  Garrison,  xxxi;  order  for  re 
construction  of,  238;  re- reconstruction 
of,  297-300;  status  of  negroes  in,  298; 
bill  for  reorganization  of,  298,  299;  T.'s 
attitude  on  treatment  of,  298,  299,  300. 

German  vote,  the,  and  the  Republican 
nomination  in  1860,  103. 

Germans  in  St.  Clair  county.  111.,  38. 

Gettysburg,  battle  of,  and  its  effect  on 
Vallandigham's  ambition,  206. 

Gillespie.  Joseph,  10. 

Gilman,  Winthrop  S.,  9. 

Godkin,  Edwin  L.,  quoted,  381,382;  refuses 
to  support  Greeley,  385;  deprecates 
Schurz's  contrary  decision,  392, 393;  and 
Greeley's  defeat,  404 ;  353. 

Godwin,  Parke,  quoted,  against  Greeley, 
393. 

Goodrich,  Grant,  quoted,  119. 

Government  bonds,  falling  off  in  sub 
scriptions  to,  in  autumn  of  1861,  170. 

Government  contracts,  House  committee 
on,  l~8tf. ;  censures  T.  A.  Scott,  184,  185. 


442 


INDEX 


Gowdy 


Gowdy,  W.  C.,40n. 

"Grandfather  clause,"  the,  in  constitu 
tions  of  southern  states,  339. 

Grant,  Ulysses  S.,  J.  M.  Palmer  on  his 
character  and  future,  216 ;  his  southern 
tour  of  inspection,  and  report,  252,  253, 
254;  Secretary  of  War  ad  interim,  305; 
retires  in  favor  of  Stanton  after  actionof 
Senate,  306;  his  correspondence  with 
Johnson,  submitted  to  Reconstruction 
Committee,  306,  307 ;  his  reason  for  retir 
ing,  307;  Johnson  on  his  attitude,  307  n.; 
and  the  McCardle  case,  327;  nominated 
for  Pres.,  and  elected,  332,  333;  his  first 
cabinet  a  conglomerate,  333;  and  Wash- 
burne's  appointment,  334;  his  agree 
ment  with  J.  F.  Wilson,  334;  compels 
Washburne  to  resign,  334;  appoints 
Fish,  335;  nominates  Stewart  for  Treas 
ury,  335,  336,  then  Boutwell,  336;  his 
other  appointments,  337,  338;  his  army- 
headquarters  transferred  to  White 
House,  342;  the  San  Domingo  treaty, 
and  quarrel  with  Sumner,  342  ff. ;  re 
moves  Motley  as  minister  to  England, 
347,  348;  offers  English  mission  to  T., 
347,  348  ;  and  civil-service  reform,  349, 
350;  and  Attorney-General  Hoar,  350; 
and  the  Liberal  movement  in  Mo.,  355  ; 
shortcomings  of  his  administration,  the 
main  cause  of  Liberal  movement,  361 ; 
his  failings  in  civil  station  reviewed, 
361  ff. ;  nominated  because  of  his  mili 
tary  renown,  361,  362;  his  great  services 
on  two  occasions,  362  ;  and  the  Leet  and 
Stocking  case,  365^. ;  T.  not  personally 
hostile  to,  369,  370;  Republican  dissatis 
faction  with,  370,  371,  and  opposition  to, 
372  ff. ;  Sumner's  speech  against,  387, 
388 ;  his  services  overlooked  by  Sumner, 
388 ;  compared  favorably  with  Greeley, 
392,  393;  renominated  by  Republicans, 
393  ;  not  personally  involved  in  Credit- 
Mobilier  scandal,  401;  reflected,  402; 
and  the  contest  in  La.,  in  1872,  405,  406 
and  71.;  his  second  administration,  407, 
408;  212,  214,  215,  226,  227,  236  and  n.,  240, 
308,  309,  330,  384,  408,  411,  420. 

Gray,  Horace,  275. 

Gray,  Robert  A.,  161. 

Greeley,  Horace,  "puffs"  Douglas,  80,  91, 
92;  candidate  for  Liberal  Republican 
nomination,  377  ;  his  career  and  char 
acter,  378;  editorial  attitude  toward  his 
candidacy,  381;  Brown  withdraws  in  his 
favor,  382, 383;  nominated,  384;  effect  of 
his  nomination,  384  ff.;  Godkin  and  Bry 
ant  refuse  to  support,  385;  T.'s  letter  in 
favor  of,  386,  387;  author's  view  of  his 
nomination,  389,  390;  refuses  Schurz's 
advice  to  decline,  391 ;  meeting  of  Lib 


eral  Republicans  opposed  to,  391,  392; 
Schurz's  attitude  toward,  392,  393;  nom 
inated  by  Democrats,  394;  supported  by 
T.  in  the  campaign,  395  ff.;  T.'s  tribute 
to,  399;  his  failings  laid  bare,  400;  carica 
ture  by  Nast,  400;  on  the  stump  in  Ohio, 
etc.,  400;  his  tariff  views,  401;  his  stump 
ing  tour  too  late,  401 ;  overwhelmingly 
defeated,  402;  fatal  effect  of  defeat  on, 
403 ;  and  n. ;  his  last  letter  to  Schurz, 
403;  his  death,  403;  reflections  on  his 
fate,  404;  86,  87,  88,  141,  307  n.,  369. 

Green,  James  S.,  Senator,  114. 

Greene,  Francis  V.,  General,  quoted,  227- 

Greenville  Academy,  5. 

Gregory,  S.  S.,  414. 

Grider,  Henry,  Congressman,  281. 

Grier,  Robert  C.,  Justice  Sup.  Ct.,  289. 

Grimes,  James  W.,  Senator,  denounces 
impeachment, 313;  censuredby radicals, 
313;  striken  with  paralysis,  but  votes 
against  impeachment,325;  "though  pure 
as  ice,"  did  not  escape  calumny,  326; 
quoted,  on  Republican  corruption,  341; 
his  character,  341 ;  150,  165,  166,  168,  189, 
202,  281,  287,  316,  317,  338. 

Grimshaw,  Jackson,  quoted,  213. 

Grinnell,  Moses  H.,  collector  of  N.  Y., 
364;  and  Leet,  367,  368. 

Groesbeck,  William  S.,  of  counsel  for 
Johnson,  309;  372. 

Grosvenor,  William  M.,  352,  353,  382,  383. 

Guthrie,  James,  Senator,  271. 

Habeas  corpus,  authority  to  suspend, 
given  to  Scott,  190 ;  discussion  of  power 
to  suspend,  191,  194;  case  of  Merryman, 
194-196;  writ  of,  denied  Vallandigham, 
205;  suspension  of,  authorized  in  Ku- 
Klux  bill  of  1871,  356,  357. 

Habeas  Corpus  Suspension  bill,  passes 
House,  1%;  reported  by  T.  to  Senate, 
but  fails  to  pass,  197;  T.  offers  substi 
tute  for,  198,  which  is  opposed  by  Dem 
ocrats,  199,  but  passes  Senate,  199;  in 
conference,  combined  with  Stevens's  in 
demnity  bill,  199;  debated,  filibustered 
against,  and  passed,  200-203;  character 
ized,  203;  violated  by  banishment  of 
Vallandigham,  203^'.;  and  the  Milligan 
case,  288,289 ;  invoked  by  McCardle,  327. 

Hahn,  Michael,  chosen  governor  of  La., 
under  reconstruction,  232,  233. 

Hale,  Eugene,  Congressman,  as  a  revenue 
reformer,  354. 

Hale,  John  P.,  Senator,  speech  of,  on  Kan 
sas  affairs,  65;  xxi,  37,  38,  102,  189,  194. 

Hall's  carbines,  fraudulent  repurchases 
of,  184. 

Halleck,  Henry  W.,  General,  G.  Welles 
on,  226;  other  opinions  of,  227;  212. 


Illinois 


INDEX 


443 


Halstead,  Murat,  380,  381,  384. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  xxiii. 

Hamlin,  Hannibal,  Vice-President,  108, 
109,  112,  141. 

Hancock,  Winfleld  S.,  General,  422. 

Hardin,  John  J.,  10,  427. 

Harding,  A.  C.,  quoted,  118. 

Harlan,  James,  Senator,  150,  189,  320,  338, 
366,  419. 

Harlan,  John  M.,  Justice  Sup.  Ct.,  his 
dissenting  opinion  in  Civil  Rights 
Cases,  276,  278 ;  275. 

Harper's  Ferry,  Brown's  raid  on,  96-100. 

Harris,  Ira,  Senator,  176,  262,  281. 

Harris,  N.  Dwight,  Negro  Servitude  in 
Illinois,  29  and  n.;  30,  31;  on  T.,  31. 

Harrison,  William  H.,  Governor,  favors 
slavery  in  Northwest  Territory,  24. 

Hartford  Convention,  xxiv,  xxv. 

Harvey,  J.  E.,  divulges  purpose  to  send 
supplies  to  Sumter,  155.0".;  rewarded  by 
Seward,  155,  157;  Republican  senators 
seek  his  recall  from  Portugal,  155, 156. 

Hatch,  O.  M.,  Secretary  of  State  of  111., 
87,  213. 

Hay,  John,  his  diary,  quoted,  158,  190,  227. 
And  see  Nicolay  and  Hay. 

Hayes,  Rutherford  B.,  President,  dis 
puted  election  of,  406,  407^'.  ;  declared 
elected  by  Electoral  Commission,  411. 

Hayne,  Robert  Y.,  Senator,  xxii  n.,  xxvi, 
xxvii,  3. 

Heath,  Randolph,  42. 

Hecker,  Fred,  quoted,  215 ;  38. 

Henderson,  John  B.,  Senator,  proposes 
amendment  to  Constitution,  forbidding 
slavery,  223;  his  resolution,  amended, 
reported  by  T.,  224;  his  speech  in  its 
favor,  227;  the  only  one  of  the  "  Trait 
ors  "  whom  the  Republican  party  pub 
licly  forgave,  326;  260,  314, 316,  317, 321  n.; 
352. 

Hendricks,  Thomas  A.,  Senator,  228,  258, 
262,  271,  285,  301,  329,  402. 

Henn,  Bernhart,  Congressman,  35. 

Herndon,  William  H.,  quoted,  75,  80,  89, 
90,  91,  92,  107,  119,  214,  429;  87,  112,  143 n.; 
426,  428. 

Herold,  conspirator,  289. 

Hewitt,  Abram  S.,  Congressman,  408,  409. 

Hickox,  Virgil,  13,  19. 

Hill,  Adams  S.,  341. 

Hilton,  Henry,  and  A.  T.  Stewart,  336. 

Hoadley,  George,  372,  382. 

Hoar,  E.  Rockwood,  appointed  Attorney- 
General,  337,  338;  cause  of  his  resigna 
tion,  350;  his  recommendations  for  va 
cant  judgeships,  350;  his  nomination  to 
Supreme  Court  not  confirmed,  and  why, 
350;  Grant  asks  his  resignation,  350. 

Hodge,  Paymaster,  362,  363,  395. 


Hoffman,  John  T.,  Governor,  379. 

Hogeboom,  Henry,  147. 

Holden,  W.  H.,  238. 

Horner,  William  N.,  quoted,  on  T's  char- 
acter,  425. 

House  of  Representatives,  Kansas-Ne 
braska  bill  in,  37;  rejects  Lecompton 
bill,  83,  but  passes  substituted  English 
bill,  84 ;  passes  proposed  Amendment  to 
Constitution,  forbidding  interference 
with  slavery,  117;  passes  Confiscation 
bill,  175 ;  Committee  on  Government  Con 
tracts  of,  178^'.;  censures  Cameron, 
187;  passes  bill  concerning  political 
prisoners,  196 ;  passes  Stevens's  indem 
nity  bill,  198;  debate  on  13th  Amend 
ment  in,  223,  228;  debate  on  Civil  Rights 
bill  in,  271,  272,  281;  passes  14th  Amend 
ment,  282, 283;  Stevens's  Reconstruction 
bill  introduced  in,  284,  passed  by,  291, 
292,  and  passed  over  veto,  293, 294 ;  passes 
bill  admitting  Tennessee,  295;  Tenure- 
of-Office  bill  in,  301,  and  passed  by, 
over  veto,  303;  votes  against  impeach 
ment  (Dec.,  1867),  303,  304 ;  impeachment 
voted  by  (Feb.,  1868),  309;  passes  15th 
Amendment,  338-340;  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  of,  354 ;  Committee  of 
inquiry  into  navy  frauds,  characterized 
by  T.,  397,  398. 

Hovey,  Alvin  P.,  Governor,  288. 

Ho  ward,  Jacob  M . ,  Senator,  on  Civil  Rights 
bill,269, 270;  on  Reconstruction  Commit 
tee,  281;  proposes  definition  of  "cit 
izens"  in  14th  Amendment,  282,  283; 
287,  298. 

Howe,  Samuel  G.,  343. 

Howe,  Timothy  O.,  Senator,  his  view  of 
the  impeachment,  310;  and  the  ousting 
of  Surnner,  345, 346;  316, 320,  323,  343,  366. 

Humphrey,  James,  180. 

Hunt,  Gaillard,  xxii  n. 

Hunter,  David,  General,  at  first  battle  of 
Bull  Run,  165;  his  order  freeing  slaves 
in  certain  states,  revoked  by  Lincoln, 
172. 

Hunter,  R.  M.  T.,  Senator,  49, 116. 

Kurd,  H.  B.,98. 

Hurlbut,  S.  A.,  quoted,  74. 

Hutchins,  Waldo,  390. 

Illinois,  new  constitution  of,  adopted  in 
1847,  20 ;  slavery  in,  when  ceded  to  U.  S., 
23;  earlier  occupation  of,  23;  opposition 
to  slavery  in,  organized  by  Lemen,  23, 
24;  territorial  legislature  of,  violates 
Ordinance  of  1787,  24,  25 ;  provisions  of 
constitution  of,  concerning  slavery,  25; 
pro-slavery  efforts  to  amend  constitu 
tion,  25,  26;  their  failure,  27;  T.  elected 
to  Congress  from  8th  district  of,  37,  38; 


444 


INDEX 


Illinois 


and  Seward's  candidacy,  103;  campaign 
of  1800  in,  108^'.;  office-seekers  from,  in 
1361,  139;  status  of  negroes  in,  243 ;  in 
the  Cincinnati  convention  (1872),  389, 
390  ;  T.  nominated  for  governor  of,  and 
defeated,  412. 

Illinois  legislature,  and  the  proposed  con 
stitutional  convention,  25,  26 ;  and  the 
Senatorial  election  of  1854,  3Qff.,  46  n.; 
condemns  proceedings  against  Chicago 
Times,  209  ;  reelects  T.  as  senator,  277. 

Illinois  State  Bank,  suspension  of,  13. 

Illinois  Supreme  Court,  reconstruction 
of,  11;  number  of  judges  of,  20;  T.  elected 
judge  of,  20;  T.  reflected  to,  and  re 
signs,  21 ;  decision  of,  in  Jarrot  v.  Jar- 
rot,  29,  30. 

Immigration,  and  attempted  legalization 
of  slavery  in  111.,  26. 

Impeachment,  two  theories  of,  312  ;  a  ju 
dicial  or  political  process  ?  312. 

Impeachment  of  Andrew  Johnson,  first 
mention  of,  303 ;  House  Judiciary  Com 
mittee  reports  in  favor  of,  304 ;  House 
rejects  resolution  providing  for,  304; 
evidence  submitted  to  Committee  on  Re 
construction,  306,  which  refuses  to  re 
commend,  308  ;  resolutions  of,  adopted 
by  House,  309  ;  articles  of,  adopted,  309- 
311;  managers  appointed,  309 ;  trial  of, 
309,  312  Jf. ;  conduct  of  managers  of,  312, 
313;  material  evidence  excluded,  313: 
divers  newspapers  quoted  concerning, 
314-317;  T.  files  opinion  in,  318,  319;  vote 
of  acquittal  on  llth,  2d,  and  3d  articles, 
320,  321;  end  of  the  trial,  321;  T.'s  vote 
on,  423. 

Indemnity,  Stevens'sbill  of  passes  House, 
198;  combined  with  habeas  corpus  bill, 
199;  debated,  filibustered  against,  and 
passed,  200-203. 

Independent  J)emocrat,  the,  14. 

Indiana,  opposed  to  Seward,  103;  in  con 
vention  of  1860,  106,  107;  election  of 
Oct.,  1872,  in,  402. 

Inflation  bill,  Grant's  veto  of,  362. 

Ingraham,  Mary,  T.'s  second  wife,  412. 
And  see  Trumbull,  Mary  (Ingraham). 

Investigation  and  Retrenchment,  Com 
mittee  on,  established  by  Senate,  364 ; 
personnel  of,  366,  367;  solves  Leet  and 
Stocking  scandal,  367-369;  characterized 
by  T.,  395,396. 

"  Irrepressible  Conflict,"  the,  existed  be 
fore  it  was  so  described,  xxxiv. 

Iverson,  Alfred,  Senator,  213. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  xxv,  xxvi,  76,  103,  124. 
Janney,  Mr.,  161. 

Jarrot  v.  Jarrot,  decision  of  Supreme 
Court  in,  abolished  Slavery  in  111.,  29, 30. 


Jayne,  Gershom,  T.'s  father-in-law,  15. 

Jayne,  Mrs.  Gershom,  T.'s  letter  to,  on  re 
ligion,  430,  431. 

Jayne,  Julia  M.,  marries  T.,  15.  And  see 
Trumbull,  Julia  (Jayne). 

Jayne,  William,  quoted,  106,  107  ;  108,  109, 
111,  150,379. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  and  slavery,  xxviii,  23, 
24;  the  proposed  ordinance  relating 
thereto  (1784),  xxviii,  xxix  andn. ;  quot 
ed, on  Missouri  Compromise,  xxx ;  xxiii, 
xxiv. 

Johnson,  Andrew,  popularity  of ,  inTenn., 
214 ;  his  early  radicalism  and  anti-South 
ern  feeling,  236;  gradual  change  in  his 
attitude,  236 ;  opposes  unrestricted  ne 
gro  suffrage,  236,  237;  adopts  Lincoln's 
plan  of  reconstruction  and  his  Cabi 
net,  237;  executive  orders  of,  reor 
ganizing  governments  of  all  seceding 
states,  237,  238 ;  issues  amnesty  procla 
mation,  239 ;  Phillips  makes  first  attack 
on,  239,  240 ;  defended  by  N.  Y.  Tribune 
and  Times,  240,  241 ;  his  first  message  to 
Congress,  written  by  Bancroft,  244 ;  the 
message  praised  by  N.  Y.  Times  and 
Nation,  244,  245;  his  early  history,  245 
and  n. ;  in  Senate  ;of  U.S.,  246;  as  pub 
lic  speaker  and  debater,  246  ;  his  speech 
against  secession,  246;  Stephens  and 
Seward  on,  246;  his  speech  of  Aug.  29, 
1866,  246 ;  attacked  by  Sumner,  246,  247 ; 
and  Terry's  order  concerning  vagrancy 
law  of  Va.,  247 ;  and  reports  of  Grant  and 
Schurz  on  conditions  in  the  South,  252, 
253,254;  vetoes  Freedmen'a  Bureau  bill, 
260,  261,  423;  vetoes  Civil  Rights  bill, 
272,  423 ;  his  veto  message  answered  by 
T.,  272;  his  course  discussed,  273,  274; 
his  combativeness,  273  and  n.,  274  ;  ma 
jority  against,  in  Congress,  increased  by 
elections  of  1866,  277;  sustained  by  T. 
until  veto  of  Civil  Rights  bill,  277;  signs 
bill  readmitting  Tenn.,  285;  "National 
Union  Convention"  of  supporters  of, 
285,  286;  his  attack  on  Congress,  and  its 
sequel,  286;  policy  of,  and  the  Milligan 
case,  289;  and  the  Cabinet  meeting  of 
Jan.  8,  1867,  290;  Northern  view  of  his 
plan  of  reconstruction,  293;  vetoes  Re 
construction  bill,  293,  and  divers  supple 
mentary  bills,  293,  294;  his  power  of  re 
moval  aimed  at  by  Tenure-of-Office  bill, 
301,  302;  impeachment  of,  now  generally 
condemned,  303;  first  mention  of  im 
peachment  of,  303,  304;  House  rejects 
impeachment  resolutions,  304;  requests 
Stanton's  resignation,  304, 305 ;  suspends 
him  and  appoints  Grant  ad  interim, 
305;  correspondence  of,  with  Grant, 
submitted  to  committee,  306,  307;  his 


Liberal  Republicans 


INDEX 


445 


lack  of  tact,  306 ;  wishes  to  make  up  a 
case  for  Supreme  Court,  307 ;  quoted  by 
Truman  as  to  his  Cabinet,  307  n.;  ad 
vised  to  let  Stanton  alone,  but  attempts 
to  remove  him,  308 ;  names  Thomas  Sec 
retary  ad  interim,  308 ;  his  action  causes 
change  in  public  feeling,  309;  House 
votes  to  impeach,  309 ;  his  trial,  309,  312 
ff. ;  summary  of  articles,  309-311 ;  his  an 
swer,  311;  evidence  of  his  purpose  to 
make  a  case  for  Supreme  Court  not  ad 
mitted,  312,  313 ;  acquitted,  320,  321 ;  ve 
toes  Act  of  March  27,  1868,  329 ;  T.'s  vote 
on  impeachment  of,  423;  181  n.,  229,  278. 

Johnson,  Reverdy,  Senator,  favors  13th 
Amendment,  227 ;  on  Civil  Rights  bill, 
270;  247,264,281. 

Jonas,  A.,  quoted,  74,  79,  92. 

Jones,  George  W.,  35. 

Judd,  Norman  B.,  expects  seat  in  Lin 
coln's  Cabinet,  148;  his  character,  149; 
favored  by  T.,  149;  interview  of,  with 
Lincoln,  149, 150;  receives  Prussian  mis 
sion  as  a  salve,  151,  152 ;  quoted,  as  to 
T.'s  feeling  against  Lincoln,  217;  as  to 
European  admiration  of  Lincoln,  231; 
on  other  subjects,  74,  80,  91 ;  15,  41,  43, 
45,  46  n.,  69,  87,  93,  142. 

Julian,  George  W.,  Congressman,  de 
scribes  scene  in  House  on  adoption  of 
13th  Amendment,  228  and  n. ;  xxi. 

Kansas,  did  Douglas  intend  it  to  be  a  slave 
state?  35,  36;  affairs  in,  in  1855,  49  ff.  ; 
prospect  of  slavery  in,  49;  Reeder  ap 
pointed  governor,  49;  invaded  by  Mis- 
sourians,  49;  election  of  Whitfiel*,  49, 
50;  second  invasion  of  Missourians,  50^'.; 
"  Border  Ruffian  "  legislature  of,  enacts 
Slave  code,  54,  55;  Shannon  appointed 
governor,  55;  Free  State  convention  in, 
55;  Pres.  Pierce's  special  message  on 
affairs  in,  55;  reports  of  Senate  Com 
mittee  on  Territories  thereon,  55^'. ;  de 
bate  on  affairs  in,  in  Senate,  55^.  ;  T.'s 
letter  to  Turner  on  affairs  in,  71 ;  Walker 
appointed  governor,  71;  Constitutional 
Convention  at  Lecompton,  72;  Cabinet 
Conspiracy  concerning  referendum  on 
Lecompton  Constitution,  72,  73;  legis 
lature  declares  for  submission  of  the 
whole  Constitution,  73;  admission  of, 
thereunder,  recommended  by  Bu 
chanan,  81 ;  administration  bill,  passed 
by  Senate,  but  repealed  by  House,  83; 
English  bill,  passed  by  Congress,  but  re 
jected  by  people,  83,  84;  reign  of  terror 
in,  126;  proposed  suffrage  amendment 
to  Constitution  of,  rejected,  295. 
Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  its  original  form, 
33,  34;  as  amended,  34,  35;  passed  by 


Congress,  37 ;  effect  of  passage  of,  on 
parties  at  the  North,  37;  T.  organizes 
opposition  to,  in  111.,  37,  38;  opposed  by 
Lincoln,  39;  and  the  Senatorial  election 
in  111.,  in  1854,  39  jf. ;  attacked  by  T.,  56; 
125, 126, 131. 

Keim,  William  H.,  195. 

Kellogg,  William  P.,  and  the  governor 
ship  of  La.,  404,  405,  406,  408;  410,  411. 

Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1798,  xxiii. 

King,  Preston,  Senator,  122. 

King,  Rufus,  xxii  n. 

Koerner,Gustave,quoted,  103, 118,212,213; 
interview  of,  with  Lincoln,  149,  150;  and 
the  Russian  mission,  151, 152;  appointed 
Minister  to  Spain,  152;  T.  writes  to,  on 
impeachment,  323;  his  death  and  fun 
eral,  418  ;  29,  30,  37,  38,  379. 

Ku-Klux  bill,  held  unconstitutional  by 
Supreme  Court,  275,  358 ;  424. 

Ku-Klux-Klan, in  Georgia, 298, 300;  Grant's 
special  message  on,  356 ;  Congress  passes 
bill  relating  to,  356,  which  is  opposed  by 
T.  and  Schurz,  356,  357,  358. 

Labor  laws  enacted  by  seceding  states 
during  reconstruction,  242  ;  brought  be 
fore  Congress,  247;  character  of,  247. 

Lambert,  W.  H.,  110  n. 

Lane,  Henry  S.,  Senator,  106,  166. 

Lane,  James  H.,  Senator,  53,  101  n. 

Larned,  E.  C.,  T.'s  letters  to,  on  compro 
mise,  113,  114. 

Lea,  M.  Carey,  letter  of,  to  T.,  on  Fre 
mont  emancipation  episode,  170,  and  T.'s 
reply,  171, 172. 

Lecompton  constitution, slavery  clause  of, 
alone  to  be  submitted  to  people,  72,  73 ; 
declared  valid  by  Buchanan,  76;  con 
demned  by  T.,  76,  77;  admission  of  Kan 
sas  under,  urged  by  Buchanan,  81;  dis 
appears  with  rejection  of  English  bill 
by  the  people,  83. 

Lee,  S.  Phillips,  169. 

Leet  and  Stocking  scandal,  364  ff. ;  Sen 
ate  orders  inquiry  into,  365-367 ;  solution 
of,  367-369. 

Lemen,  Rev.  James,  organizes  opposition 
to  slavery  in  Northwest  Terr.,  23,  24. 

Lewis,  B.,  quoted,  107. 

Lewis,  John  F.,  161. 

Liberal  Republican  movement  (1872) 
started  in  Mo.,  351 ;  progress  of,  351  Jf.  ; 
Schurz  a  leader  in,  352 ;  revenue  reform 
an  element  in,  352,  353  ;  how  viewed  by 
Grant  and  his  friends,  355;  shortcom 
ings  of  Grant's  administration  the  main 
cause  of,  361.  And  see  Cincinnati,  Con 
vention  at. 

Liberal  Republicans,  demand  universal 
Amnesty  with  impartial  suffrage,  356 ; 


446 


INDEX 


Liberal  Republicans 


call  for  national  Convention  of,  372, 
which  meets  at  Cincinnati,  374^. ;  lead 
ing  candidates  for  presidency  among, 
377;  division  among,  afterGreeley's  nom 
ination,  385  Jf. ;  meeting  of  dissentients, 
391,  392.  And  see  Missouri. 

Liberator,  the,  established  by  Garrison 
(1831),  xxxi;  attempts  to  suppress,  xxxii. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  in  111.  legislature  of 
1840,  10;  his  marriage,  15;  and  the  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  37;  and  the  Senatorial 
election  of  1854, 39, 43^'. ;  effect  of  repeal 
of  Missouri  Compromise  on,  39;  his 
speech  at  Peoria  in  reply  to  Douglas,  39, 
40  and  n. ;  defeated  by  T.,  45, 46  n. ;  letter 
of,  to  Washburne,  on  the  result,  45,  46; 
possible  results  of  his  election,  47 ;  urges 
T.  to  attend  first  Republican  national 
convention,  69 ;  receives  votes  for  Vice- 
President,  69 ;  writes  T.  on  the  ticket, 
69,  70 ;  on  Douglas's  attitude  on  Lecomp- 
ton,  74;  on  Republican  praise  of  Doug 
las,  87;  Palmer  on  candidacy  of,  for 
Senate,  88;  campaign  of,  for  senatorship 
(1858),  89  ff. ;  on  Buchanan  Democrats, 
90;  on  prospects  for  1860, 92;  his  relations 
with  T.,  93;  his  debate  with  Douglas  at 
Freeport,  94  n.;  commends  T.'s  speech 
on  John  Brown  raid,  100;  on  Delahay's 
candidacy  for  Senate,  100,  101  n.;  his 
status  in  1860,  102  ;  a  possible  candidate 
for  Republican  nomination,  102  ff. ;  on 
the  various  candidates,  104, 105 ;  his  rad 
icalism,  105 ;  nominated,  106  ;  comments 
of  Illinoisanson  his  candidacy,  106,  107; 
on  Republican  prospects,  108  ;  his  vote 
in  111.,  109;  and  the  ratification  at  Spring 
field,  109,  110;  on  South  Carolina's  atti 
tude,  110,  111 ;  opposed  to  compromise  on 
extension  of  slavery,  111 ;  proposes  reso 
lutions  on  slavery,  etc.,  112;  on  rumors 
of  Buchanan's  purpose  to  surrender 
forts,  112,  113;  his  Cooper  Institute 
speech,  115  ;  and  the  office-seekers,  139 ; 
the  making  of  his  Cabinet,  139^.;  and 
Seward,  139-141;  offers  State  Department 
to  Seward,  141;  the  Cameron  affair,  142 
ff. ;  his  instructions  against  pre-conven- 
tion  contracts,  142;  Davis's  influence 
over,  143  and  n.;  promises  Cameron  a 
portfolio,  144;  anti-Cameron  appeal  to, 
by  McClure  and  T.,  144, 145;  his  reply  to 
T.,  145 ;  tries  to  buy  Cameron  off,  145, 
146 ;  T.'s  further  remonstrance  to,  146, 
147;  and  Judd,  148,  149;  interview  with 
Koerner,  149,  150;  and  the  Harvey  dis 
patch  to  Gov.  Pickens,  155  Jf.\  makes 
Harvey  Minister  to  Portugal,  155,  157, 
158;  his  previous  consent  to  evacuate 
Sumter,  to  prevent  secession  of  Va., 
'. ;  his  interviews  with  Baldwin  and 


Botts,  159,  160,  161 ;  absurdity  of  Dab- 
ney's  account,  162;  revokes  Fremont's 
emancipation  order,  169;  effect  of  his 
action,  169;  letters  of  Lea  and  T.  on  the 
crisis,  170-172;  T.'s  view  of  his  character, 
171;  suppresses  Cameron's  pro-emanci 
pation  report,  172  and  n.;  revokes 
Hunter's  order,  172;  proposes  to  veto 
T.'s  Confiscation  bill,  175;  his  objections 
removed  by  resolution,  175,  176;  orders 
Wallace  to  desist  from  confiscation,  177 ; 
and  Cameron,  185  ;  nominates  Cameron 
as  minister  to  Russia,  186 ;  assumes  re 
sponsibility  in  Cummings  affair,  187; 
authorizes  Scott  to  suspend  habeas  cor 
pus,  190;  his  action  approved,  191;  trans 
fers  authority  to  Stanton,  197;  proclaims 
martial  law  as  to  certain  classes,  200 ; 
issues  Emancipation  Proclamation,  200  ; 
commutes  Vallandigham's  sentence  to 
banishment,  204;  replies  to  protest  of 
Northern  Democrats,  205  ;  his  only  eva 
sion,  205;  revokes  Burnside's  order  sup 
pressing  Chicago  Times,  207,  208  ;  criti 
cized  by  N.  Y.  Tribune,  309  n. ;  and 
certain  dispatches  of  Seward  to  Adams, 
210  ff.;  requested  to  demand  Seward's 
resignation,  211 ;  his  comment,  212  ;  and 
Delahay,  214  ;  Palmer  on  his  prospect  of 
renomination,  214, 215,216 ;  first  evidence 
of  personal  difference  between  T.  and, 
217,  218;  T.'s  opinion  of  his  administra 
tion,  218;  feeling  in  Congress  adverse 
to  his  reelection,  218,  219 ;  denounced  by 
Wilson,  219  ;  basis  of  opposition  to,  219 ; 
renominated,  but  fears  defeat,  219 ;  re 
quests  Blair's  resignation,  and  why,  220 
and  n.\  T.  favors  his  reelection,  220,  221 ; 
reflected  by  favor  of  Union  victories, 
221;  and  Halleck,  226;  his  death,  231; 
European  opinion  of,  231 ;  his  view  of 
status  of  seceding  states  embodied  in 
proclamation  of  Dec.  8,  1863,  232 ;  letter 
of,  to  Gov.  Hahn  of  La.,  233 ;  his  address 
of  Apr.  11,  1865,  on  reconstruction,  234, 
235;  his  plan  adopted  by  Johnson,  237; 
had  his  life  been  spared,  286 ;  his  plan 
of  reconstruction  definitely  abandoned, 
291 ;  T.'s  estimate  of  his  character  and 
career,  430;  xxi,  65,  67,  240,  245,  246,  423. 

Lincoln,  Mary  (Todd),  42,  45. 

Lloyd,  Henry  D.,  414,  417. 

Lodge,  H.  C.,  Senator,  Daniel  Webster, 
xxii  n.,  xxv  n. 

Logan,  John  A.,  General  and  Senator,  75, 
277,  304,  309,  339,  344,  363,  409. 

Logan,  Stephen  T.,  43,  44,  142,  220. 

Louisiana,  election  in,  under  Lincoln's 
reconstruction  order,  232;  Hahn  chosen 
governor,  232,  233;  constitutional  con 
vention  in,  233;  U.  S.  Senators  chosen 


Missourians 


INDEX 


447 


under  new  free  constitution,  233  ;  reso 
lutions  recognizing  new  government 
of,  defeated  by  Sumner,  233,  234;  con 
tested  election  of  1872  in,  404,  405;  Sena 
torial  investigation  thereof,  405;  dis 
puted  returns  from,  in  1876,  408^'. 

Louisiana  Purchase,  Federalist  opposi 
tion  to,  xxiii,  xxiv. 

Louisville  Courier-Journal,  interview 
withT.  in,  3G9,  370;  372. 

Lovejoy,  Rev.  Elijah  P.,  murder  of,  de 
scribed  by  T.,  8-10;  its  effect  on  Aboli 
tion  movement,  10;  xxxiii. 

Lovejoy,  Rev.  Owen,  Congressman,  43. 

Lundy,  Benjamin,  xxxi. 

McCardle,  William  H.,  arrest  and  im 
prisonment  of,  327 ;  remanded  on  ha 
beas  corpus,  327;  appeals,  327;  T.  ap 
pears  against  in  Supreme  Court,  327, 
328 ;  his  appeal  dismissed,  under  Act  of 
March,  1868,  329,  330;  T.'s  connection 
with  case  of,  criticized,  330,  331. 

McClellan,  George  B.,  General,  inaction 
of,  169;  171,  172,219. 

McClernand,  John  A.,  10, 11,  427. 

McClure,  A.  K.,  his  Lincoln  and  Men  of 
War-Time,  quoted,  143;  opposes  Cam 
eron's  appointment,  144 ;  374. 

McClurg,  Joseph,  352. 

McCulloch,  Hugh,  Secretary  of  Treasury, 
opinion  of,  on  question  of  territorializ 
ing  states,  290. 

McDougall,  James  A.,  Senator,  166,  228, 
285. 

McDowell,  Irwin,  General,  at  first  Bull 
Run,  165,  167. 

McEnery,  John,  and  the  governorship 
of  La.,  404,  405. 

McLean,  John,  Justice  Sup.  Ct.,  candi 
date  for  Republican  nomination  (1860), 
103  ;  shakes  his  fist  in  Buchanan's  face, 
122,  123;  69,  104,  105. 

McLean,  Mrs.  John,  121. 

McPike,  H.  G.,  quoted,  107,  118;  T.'s  let 
ter  to,  on  Lincoln's  reelection,  218. 

Madison,  James,  xxii  n.,  xxxi. 

Magruder,  Allan  B.,  161,  162. 

Magruder,  Benj.  D.,  Chief  Justice  of  111., 
quoted,  21,  22. 

Mails,  irregularity  of,  in  early  19th  cen 
tury,  7. 

Malaria,  Trumbull  family  afflicted  by, 
19. 

Managers  of  impeachment,  overmatched 
by  defendant's  counsel,  309;  their  con 
duct  of  the  trial,  312,  313 ;  bring  pres 
sure  to  bear  on  Senators,  313. 

Mann,  A.,  Jr.,  140,  141. 

Marble,  Manton,  quoted,  373. 

Mason,  James  M.,  Senator,  threatens  dis 


solution  of  Union,  70,  71 ;  moves  for 
committee  of  inquiry  into  John  Brown 
raid,  98  ;  53,  116,  134,  349  and  n. 

Massachusetts,  slavery  in,  xxvii. 

Massachusetts  legislature,  Anti-Embargo 
resolutions  of,  xxiv. 

Mather,  Rev.  Richard,  2. 

Matteson,  Joel  A.,  Governor,  43,  44,  46 
and  ?i.,  60. 

Matteson,  O.  B.,  179. 

Matthews,  Stanley,  Justice  of  Sup.  Ct., 
275,  372. 

Maynard,  Horace,  Congressman,  quoted, 
293. 

Medill,  Joseph,  quoted,  on  T.'s  character 
and  possible  future,  424,  425. 

Meigs,  Montgomery  C.,  Q.-M.  Gen.,  185. 

Merryman,  John,  summary  arrest  of, 
194-196. 

Methodist  Church,  the,  and  the  impeach 
ment  trial,  317. 

Miles,  Nelson  A.,  General,  167. 

Military  commission,  trial  of  civilians 
by,  divided  opinion  of  Supreme  Court 
on,  in  Milligan  case,  289. 

Miller,  Samuel  F.,  Justice  Sup.  Ct.,  275, 
289,  409. 

Milligan  case,  decided  by  majority  of 
Supreme  Court,  288,  289  ;  grounds  of  de 
cision,  288,  289,  and  its  consequences, 
289  ;  radicals  angered  by,  289,  290  ;  327. 

Minnesota,  proposed  suffrage  amend 
ment  to  constitution  of,  repealed,  295. 

Mississippi,  order  for  reconstruction  of, 
238;  fails  to  adopt  new  constitution 
promptly,  295;  new  conditions  im 
posed  on,  296. 

Missouri,  admission  of,  xxix,  xxx,  during 
the  war,  351 ;  continued  political  warfare 
in,  after  the  war,  351 ;  state  constitution 
of  1865,  351;  division  in  Republican 
party  of,  results  in  Schurz's  election  as 
senator,  351,  352 ;  success  of  Liberal 
republican  movement  in,  352;  liberal 
movement  in,  how  viewed  by  Grant, 
355 ;  state  convention  of  Liberal  Repub 
licans  of,  adopts  platform  and  calls 
national  Convention,  372  ;  its  platform 
defended  by  T.,  376;  vote  of,  in  Cincin 
nati  convention,  383. 

Missouri  Compromise,  history  of,  xxx; 
repeal  of,  causes  T.'s  return  to  politics, 
32;  not  repealed  by  original  Nebraska 
bill,  34;  Dixon  amendment  for  repeal  of, 
adopted  by  Douglas,  34;  repeal  of,  and 
Lincoln,  39;  meaning  of  "  forever  "  in, 
62,  63  n. ;  repeal  of,  125,  126;  and  the 
Crittenden  Compromise,  131. 

Missouri  Democrat,  the,  142,  352. 

Missourians,  and  Kansas,  35;  invade  Kan 
sas,  49;  threaten  Gov.  Reeder,  50,  51; 


448 


INDEX 


Missourians 


Atchison's  advice  to,  52;  in  Kansas,  66, 

57,  58,  65. 

Monroe,  James,  President,  103. 
Moran,  Thomas  A.,  Judge,  on  T.'s  public 

services,  419. 
Morgan,  Edwin  D.,  Governor,  178, 261,  265, 

314,  321. 
Morrill,   Justin    S.,   Congressman,   168, 

281. 

Morrill,  Lot  N.,  Senator,  263. 
Morrison,  J.  L.  D.,  41. 
Morton,  Oliver  P.,  Senator,  298,  307  n.,  339, 

346,  355,  363,  371,  376,  405,  406  and  n. 
Motley,  J.  Lothrop,  minister  to  England, 

removed,  347,  348. 
Moultrie,  Fort,  129. 
Murphy,  Thomas,  appointed  collector  of 

N.  Y.,  362,  363;  and  the  Leet  and  Stock 
ing  case,  365,  368 ;  371. 

Nation,  the,  praises  Johnson's  first  mes 
sage,  244,  245;  quoted,  on  T.  and  the 
Georgia  bill,  299,  300;  on  Republican 
abuse  of  the  "  Seven  traitors,"  316,  317; 
on  conference  of  revenue  reformers,  353, 
354;  on  Liberal  Republican  movement, 
355,  356;  on  Leet  and  Stocking  case,  368, 
369 ;  on  opposition  to  Grant,  370,  371 ;  on 
Cooper  Union  meeting,  376,  377;  on 
Schurz's  attitude  toward  Greeley,  392  ; 
and  the  defeat  of  Greeley,  404;  273,  372. 

National  Union  Convention  of  Johnson 
men,  285,  286,  323. 

Nationalism,  and  the  Constitution,  xxvi, 
xxvii. 

Nebraska,  bill  to  organize  territory  of, 
reported  by  Douglas,  33,  34.  And  see 
Anti-Nebraska  Democrats,  and  Kansas- 
Nebraska  bill. 

Negro  suffrage,  omitted  from  new  consti 
tution  of  La.,  233;  Garrison  opposes  im 
position  of,  in  the  South,  235;  Pres. 
Johnson  opposed  to,  236,  237;  vote  of 
Johnson's  Cabinet  on,  as  applying  to 
provisional  governments,  238;  not  in 
cluded  in  executive  orders,  238,  239;  W. 
Phillips's  views  on,  239,  240,  traversed 
by  N.  Y.  Tribune,  240,  and  Times,  240, 
241 ;  in  Northern  States  in  1866, 243 ;  ques 
tion  of,  not  acute  in  early  1866,  261; 
Howard  argues  against,  287;  made  a  per 
manent  condition  of  reconstruction, 
292  and  n.;  Northern  opinion  concern 
ing,  293;  in  Republican  convention  of 
1868,  332,  333;  finally  embodied  in  15th 
Amendment,  338-340. 

Negroes,  T.  appears  for  in  attempts  to  re 
gain  freedom,  28  ff. ;  right  of,  to  bring 
actions  in  U.  S.  courts,  64 ;  condition  of, 
in  South,  under  reconstruction,  241-243; 
status  of,  in  Northern  states,  in  1866,243; 


debate  on  granting  civil  rights  to, 
265  ff. 

Nelson,  Samuel,  Justice  Sup.  Ct.,  289. 

Nelson,  Thomas  A.R.,  of  couasel  for  John 
son,  309. 

Nesmith,  James  W.,  Senator,  261,  285. 

New  England,  why  opposed  to  Louisiana 
Purchase,  xxiii,  xxiv. 

New  England  Emigrant  Aid  Co.,  attacked 
by  Douglas,  35;  blamed  by  Pierce  and 
Douglas  for  disorders  in  Kansas,  26  ff. ; 
defended  by  T.,  58,  59. 

New  Jersey,  opposed  to  Seward,  103;  leg 
islature  of,  elects  Stockton  Senator,  262 ; 
validity  of  his  election  challenged,  262- 
265. 

New  York,  "compromisers"  from,  122; 
and  the  15th  Amendment,  340;  majority 
against  Greeley  in,  402. 

New  York  Evening  Post,  quoted,  on  exclu 
sion  of  negroes  from  suffrage,  239;  on  the 
impeachment  trial,  314,  315;  91,  372,  375. 

New  York  Free  Trade  League,  353. 

New  York  Herald,  quoted,  on  Cincinnati 
convention,  390;  50,  378. 

New  York  Republicans  oppose  Seward's 
inclusion  in  Lincoln's  Cabinet,  139  ff. ; 
T.'s  interview  with,  140, 141. 

New  York  Times,  quoted,  on  T.'s  debate 
with  Douglas,  66;  on  Seward's  dispatch 
to  Adams,  211;  on  Johnson's  first  mes 
sage,  244. 

New  York  Tribune,  quoted,  in  T.'s  debate 
with  Douglas,  66;  praises  Douglas,  87; 
and  the  Vallandigham  case,  205,  206, 
209  n. ;  on  Lincoln's  revocation  of  order 
suppressing  Chicago  Times,  209  n. ;  de 
fends  Johnson  against  Phillips,  240;  91, 
92,  239,  314,  315,  372. 

New  York  World,  circulation  of,  in  Burn- 
side's  department,  forbidden  by  him, 
206;  373. 

Newman,  Professor,  235. 

Nicholson  letter,  on  squatter  sovereignty, 
94. 

Nicolay,  John  G.,  quoted,  75. 

Nicolay  (John  G.)  and  Hay  (John),  Abra 
ham  Lincoln,  on  Lincoln's  offer  to  evac 
uate  Sumter,  159;  on  Cameron's  leaving 
the  Cabinet,  185, 186 ;  quoted,  143, 162, 220. 

Niles,  Nathaniel,  30. 

North,  the,  took  up  arms  to  preserve  the 
Union,  xxi,  xxii;  slavery  in,  xxviii. 

North  Carolina,  attempt  at  reconstruction 
in, 238;  qualifications  of  electors  in,  238; 
election  of  August,  1872,  in,  399,  400. 

Northern  States,  negro  suffrage  in,  243. 

Northern  view  of  reconstruction,  293. 

Northwest,  the,  its  claim  to  consideration, 
132,  133. 

Northwestern  Territory,  slavery  in,  before 


Reconstruction 


INDEX 


449 


1787,  23,  24 ;  provisions  of  Ordinance  of 

1787,  concerning  slavery  in,  24;   main 

source  of  immigration  to,  24. 
Norton, Daniel  S.,Senator,his  vote  against 

impeachment,  323;  261,  285,313. 
Nourse,  George  A.,  68. 
Noyes,  William  C.,  140,  141. 
Nullification,    in   South   Carolina,   xxv, 

xxvi;  in  Mass.  (1885),  xxvi. 
Nye,  James  W.,  Senator,  360. 

O'Conor,  Charles,  nominated  for  Pres.  by 
dissentient  Democrats  (1872),  but  de 
clines,  394. 

Ogden,  William  B.,  207. 

Oglesby,  Richard  J.,  General,  succeeds  T. 
in  Senate,  407;  277. 

Ohio,  in  convention  of  1860, 107;  proposed 
suffrage  amendment  to  constitution  of, 
rejected,  295;  and  the  15th  Amendment, 
340;  and  the  call  for  a  Liberal  Republi 
can  convention,  372;  election  of  Oct., 
1872,  in,  402. 

"Old  Public  Functionary"  (Buchanan), 
122. 

Opdycke,  George,  147,  178. 

Ord,  Edward  O.  C.,  General,  orders  ar 
rest  of  McCardle,  327. 

Ordinance  of  1787,  provisions  of,  concern 
ing  slavery,  24;  violated  by  territorial 
legislature  of  111.,  24, 25;  attempts  to  re 
peal  6th  article  of,  25 ;  kept  slavery  out  of 
111.,  28. ;  and  the  13th  Amendment,  224. 

Osgood,  Uri  (Illinois  senate),  41,  42,  43. 

Otis,  Harrison  G.,  Mayor  of  Boston,  and 
the  Liberator,  xxxii. 

Owen,  Robert  Dale,  principal  author  of 
14th  Amendment,  282. 

Palmer,  John  M.,  General,  on  Republican 
alliance  with  Douglas,  87,  88;  on  Lin 
coln's  prospect  of  renomination,  214, 
215,  216;  on  Grant's  character  and  fu 
ture,  216;  on  Liberal  Republican  move 
ment,  377;  21,^?,  43,  45,  46  n.,  93,  109,  277, 
373,  419. 

Parker,  Rev.  Theodore,  78. 

Parks,  Sam  C.,  quoted,  46  n.,  75,  119. 

Particularism,  and  the  Constitution,  xxvi. 

Patterson,  James  W.,  Senator,  343, 362, 363, 
364,  367,  371. 

Payne,  conspirator,  289. 

Pearce,  James  A.,  Senator,  194. 

Peck,  Ebenezer,  quoted,  74,  80,  119,  147, 
148;  13  87,  150,  427,  431. 

Peck,  Rev.  John  M.,  27,  28. 

Peirpoint.  Francis  M.,  recognized  as 
Governor  of  Va.,  under  reconstruction, 
237;  161. 

Pendleton,  George  H.,  Congressman,  and 
the  "  Greenback  "  movement,  324. 


Pennsylvania,  opposed  to  Seward,  103;  in 

convention  of  1860,  106,  107;  in  Liberal 

Republican  movement,  374;  election  of 

Oct.  1872,  in,  402. 
People's   party,   issues    T's   speech    at 

Chicago  as  campaign  document,  415;  T. 

draws  resolutions  for  meeting  of,  415- 

417. 
Philadelphia,  National  Union  Convention 

at,  285,  286. 

Phillips,  D.  L.,  quoted,  75,  89;  213. 
Phillips,  Wendell,  opposes  reelection  of 

Lincoln,  220;  savagely  attacks  Johnson, 

239, 240;  reproved  by  N.  Y.  Tribune,  240, 

and  Times,  240,  241;  388. 
I'iatt,  Donn,  Memories  of  Men  who  saved 

the  Union,  quoted,  222. 
Pickens,  Francis  W.,  Governor,  121,  155, 

156,  157, 158.    And  see  Harvey. 
Pierce,   Edward    L.,    Life    of    Sumner, 

quoted,  292  n.,  347  n. ;  66. 
Pierce,  Franklin,  President,  makes  Reeder 

Governor  of  Kansas,  49 ;  removes  Reeder 

and  appoints  Shannon,  55;  his  special 

message  on  Kansas  affairs,  55;  xxi,  37, 

52,  54,  65,  73,  83,  246. 
Poland,  Luke  D.,  Senator,  262,  304. 
Pomeroy,  Samuel  C.,  Senator,  202,  203. 
Poore,  Ben :  Perley,  342. 
"  Popular  sovereignty,"  39. 
Porter,  Horace,  General,  366. 
Postage  in  early  19th  century,  7,  20. 
Pottawatomie  massacre,  the,  97. 
Powell,   Lazarus    W.,   Senator,    opposes 

habeas  corpus  suspension  bill,  198, 199, 

200,  201,  202  ;  116. 

Protection,  meaning  of,  in  1871,  354. 
Pullman  Co.,  strike  of  employees  of,  413- 

415. 

Randall,  Alexander  W.,  Postmaster  Gen 
eral,  285. 

Randall,  J.  G.,  174  and  n. 

Randolph,  John,  of  Roanoke,  and  article 
6  of  Ordinance  of  1787,  25;  xxxi. 

Raum,  Green  B.,  quoted,  67  and  n. 

Rawlins,  John  A., General,  appointed  Sec 
retary  of  War,  337;  330. 

Ray,  C.  H.,  quoted,  74,  75,  87,  148,  243, 
261;  79,80,151. 

Ray,  P.  Ormon,  Repeal  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  37  n. 

Raymond,  Henry  J.,  Congressman,  272. 

Read,  John  M.,  108. 

Reconstruction,  Lincoln's  plan  of,  set 
forth  in  proclamation  of  Dec.  8,  1863, 
232;  the  La.  attempt  at,  233,  234;  Lin 
coln's  address  on,  Apr.  11,  1865,  235;  his 
plan  endorsed  by  Garrison,  235,  236,  and 
adopted  by  Johnson,  237;  in  Va.,237;  in 
Tenn.,  237, 238;  in  Ark.,  238;  in  No.  Caro- 


450 


INDEX 


Reconstruction 


lina,  and  other  seceding  states,  238; 
Shaffer  and  Kay  on  conditions  in  those 
States  under,  242,  243;  the  Nation  on 
Johnson's  plan  of,  244,  245;  Lincoln's 
plan  of,  definitely  abandoned,  291;  sup 
plementary  measure  of,  passed  by  Con 
gress,  vetoed,  and  passed  over  veto, 
294;  drastic  provisions  of,  294;  further 
measures  of,  passed  over  vetoes,  295 ;  a 
failure,  341;  change  in  T.'s  course  on, 
423,  424. 

Reconstruction,  House  Committee  on,  in 
quires  into  suspension  of  Stanton,  306; 
refuses  to  recommend  impeachment, 
308. 

Reconstruction,  Joint  Committee  on, 
members  of,  281 ;  amendment  to  Con 
stitution  proposed  to,  by  Bingham  and 
Stevens,  282;  reports  14th  Amendment, 
283,  284. 

Reconstruction  bill  (Stevens's)  establish 
ing  military  government  in  South,  291, 
292;  amended  by  provision  for  negro 
suffrage,  292;  passed  by  Congress,  ve 
toed,  and  passed  over  veto,  293,  294. 

Reeder,  Andrew  H.,  appointed  Governor 
of  Kansas,  49;  confirms  elections  of 
Whitfield  as  Delegate  to  Congress,  49, 
50  ;  and  the  Missourian  invaders,  50,51, 
53,  54 ;  removed  by  Pierce,  55  ;  56,  59,  63, 
108,  150. 

Religion,  T.'s  views  on,  430,  431. 

Republican  National  Convention  (1856), 
69;  (1860),  nominates  Lincoln,  105,  106; 
(1868)  on  negro  suffrage,  332,  333;  its 
negro-suffrage  plank  too  brazen  to  be 
long  maintained,  338;  (1872),  nominates 
Grant  and  Wilson,  393 ;  platform  of,  394. 

Republican  party,  first  national  conven 
tion  of,  69,  70 ;  rumored  alliance  of 
Douglas  with,  78-80;  still  inchoate  in 
1860,  102;  candidate  for  presidential 
nomination  of,  in  1860, 102^'. ;  T.'s  views 
concerning,  103,  104;  T.'s  view  of  duty 
of,  in  1861,  113,  114;  T.'s  position  in,  in 
campaign  of  1866,  273 ;  control  of, 
shifted  to  radical  wing  by  veto  of  Civil 
Rights  bill,  277;  power  of  that  wing  of, 
increased  by  refusal  of  South  to  ratify 
14th  Amendment,  287;  lead  of,  in  Con 
gress,  assumed  by  Sumner  and  Stevens, 
291 ;  definitely  abandons  Lincoln's  plan 
of  reconstruction,  291 ;  generally  adopts 
Sumner's  view  of  impeachment,  312; 
treatment  of  "  traitor  "  Senators  by, 
322-326  ;  Henderson  alone  forgiven,  326  ; 
corruption  in,  in  1870,  341^".;  division  in, 
in  Mo.,  351.0'. ;  both  sections  of,  in  Mo., 
adopt  "  Anti-tariff  "  resolution,  352 ;  de 
feated  in  Congressional  elections  of 
1874,  408  ;  T.'s  separation  from,  420. 


Republicans  of  the  first  period,  xxiii. 

Republicans,  Eastern,  favor  Douglas's  re 
election  to  Senate,  86;  and  the  Lincoln- 
Douglas  campaign,  91,  92;  in  111.,  dis 
trust  Douglas,  86,  and  prefer  Lincoln 
for  Senator,  86 ;  those  opposed  to  Lin 
coln,  nominate  Fremont  and  Cochrane 
(1864),  219,  220. 

Retrenchment,  Joint  Committee  on,  re 
port  of,  362,  363;  and  the  Leet  and 
Stocking  case,  364^. 

Revenue  reform,  an  element  in  Liberal 
Republican  movement,  352, 353 ;  confer 
ence  of  advocates  of,  353,  354;  in  the  Cin 
cinnati  convention,  381,  382. 

Reynolds,  John,  Governor,  and  the  pro- 
slavery  attempt  to  amend  the  constitu 
tion  of  111. ,26;  quoted,  28;  6n.,  11,  38. 

Rhode  Island,  opposed  to  Seward,  103. 

Rhodes,  James  F.,  History  of  the  U.  S., 
quoted  on  "anti-impeachment"  Sena 
tors,  322 ;  on  La.  returning  board,  408 ; 
cited,  406 n. 

Richardson,  William  A.,  Senator,  10, 197, 
201,  427. 

Riddle,  A.  G.,  Recollections  of  War- 
Time,  quoted,  228  n. ;  219. 

Robbins,  Henry  S.,  T.'s  partner,  407; 
quoted,  on  T.'s  character,  425. 

Robertson,  Thomas  J.,  359. 

Robeson,  George  M.,  appointed  Secretary 
of  the  Navy,  337 ;  action  in  the  Secor 
case,  3%,  397,  398. 

Ross,  Edmund  G.,  Senator,  immortalized 
by  his  vote  against  impeachment,  322; 
his  later  years,  and  death  in  poverty, 
322  ;  299,  314,  317. 

Russia,  Cameron  appointed  Minister  to, 
186.  187-189. 

San  Domingo  treaty,  opposed  by  Sumner, 
342,  343;  Wade  commission,  343,  and  its 
report,  386;  attempt  to  secure  ratifica 
tion  of,  360. 

Sands,  Mahlon  D.,  convokes  conference  of 
revenue  reformers,  353. 

Saulsbury,  Willard,  Senator,  201,  228,  249, 
250,  267,  268, 272. 

Scates,  Walter  B.,  Judge,  quoted,  213;  21, 
375. 

Schenck,  Robert  C.,  Congressman,  165, 166, 
167. 

Schurz,  Carl,  Senator,  report  of,  in  his 
Southern  tour,  253-255;  his  report  has 
great  influence,  254;  his  later  doubts  as 
to  his  conclusions,  254  n. ;  succeeds  Hen 
derson  in  Senate,  351,  352;  a  leader  in 
Liberal  Republican  movement,  X52;  op 
poses  Ku-Klux-Klan  bill,  356,  a"58;  his 
speech  a  masterpiece,  358;  on  Leet  and 
Stocking  case,  365,  366 ;  chairman  of  Cin- 


Sheahan 


INDEX 


451 


cinnati  Convention,  383;  his  view  of 
nomination,  384,  385 ;  how  connected 
with  course  of  Blair  and  Brown,  385  and 
n. ;  his  attitude  toward  Greeley's  can 
didacy,  391,  392;  urges  him  to  decline, 
391;  Godkin  and  Godwin  remonstrate 
with,  392,  393;  in  the  campaign,  399; 
Greeley's  farewell  letter  to,  403;  107, 189, 
343, 344,  353,  359,  363,  369,  371,  373,  377,  378, 
389,402. 

Scott,  Dred,  not  consciously  a  party  to 
suit  brought  in  his  name,  82,  83.  And  see 
Dred  Scott  case. 

Scott,  Thomas  A.,  censured  by  House 
Committee  184,  185;  172  n.,  186. 

Scott,  Winfield,  General,  has  authority 
from  Lincoln  to  suspend  habeas  corpus, 
190;  121,  122,  128,171. 

Scripps,  John  L.,  87. 

Secession  movement,  history  of,  125  ff. 

Secors,  the,  and  the  Navy  Dep't,  397,  398. 

Senate  of  U.S.,  debates  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  34,  and  passes  it,  37;  T.  takes  his 
seat  in,  48 ;  debates  on  affairs  in  Kansas 
in,  55jf.,-63,  64,  65,  76  ff.,  81,  82, 83;  passes 
Lecompton  bill,  83,  and  substituted 
English  bill,  84;  debate  on  popular  sov 
ereignty  in,  94;  debate  on  Davis's  anti- 
Douglas  resolutions  in,  95,  96,  and  on 
John  Brown  raid,  98-100 ;  J.  Davis's  last 
speeches  in,  110,  114,  115;  debates  Crit- 
tenclen  Compromise,  115-117,  and  rejects 
it,  117;  passes  proposed  amendment  to 
constitution  forbidding  interference 
with  slavery,  117;  Douglas's  death  an 
nounced  to,  by  T.,  152,  153;  struggle  in, 
over  confirmation  of  Cameron  as  Minis 
ter  to  Russia,  187-189;  debate  in,  on  ar 
bitrary  arrests,  190^.;  passes  bill  con 
cerning  political  prisoners,  197 ;  debates 
habeas  corpus  suspension  bill,  198  ff. ; 
Democratic  filibuster  thereon,  200-203; 
debates  13th  Amendment,  223  ff. ;  de 
bates  Louisiana  bill,  233,  234;  Sumner's 
attack  on  Johnson  in,  246,  247;  debate 
on  Wilson  bill  in,  247-250;  calls  for 
Schurz's  report  on  Southern  affairs,  253; 
debates  Freedmen's  Bureau  bill,  258-260, 
but  fails  to  pass  it  over  veto,  261 ;  Stock 
ton  election  contest  in,  261-265;  debates 
Civil  Rights  bill,  265-270,  and  passes  it 
over  veto,  272 ;  passes  14th  Amendment, 
283;  passes  bill  admitting  Texas,  284; 
amendment  looking  to  negro  suffrage 
offered  in,  287;  adopts  Sumner's  negro- 
suffrage  amendment  to  Reconstruction 
bill,  292,  and  passes  bill  over  veto,  293, 
294;  pass  bills  readmitting  divers  States, 
296,  297;  debates  Georgia  bill,  298,299; 
debates  Tenure-of-Office  bill,  301,  302, 
and  passes  it  over  veto,  303;  non-con- 


curs  in  removal  of  Stanton,  305,  306; 
trial  of  Johnson  impeachment  in,  309- 
314, 318-320 ;  acquits  him  on  three  counts, 
320,  321;  debate  on  T.'s  connection  with 
McCardle  case,  331,  332;  debates  and 
passes  15th  Amendment,  338-340;  debate 
in,  on  ousting  Sumner  from  Foreign  Af 
fairs  Committee,  343  ff.\  debates  Ku- 
Klux-Klan  bill,  356-358,  and  Amnesty 
bill,  359,  360,  and  Hodge  resolution,  362- 
364;  orders  inquiry  into  Leet  and  Stock 
ing  scandal,  365,  366;  discusses  make-up 
of  committee,  366,  367;  T.'s  speech  on 
Mo.  convention  of  1872,  376;  Sumner's 
anti-Grant  speech  in,  387,  388;  orders 
investigation  of  La.  election,  405;  T.'s 
last  speech  in,  405. 

Seward,  William  H.,  speech  of,  on  Kansas 
affairs,  64;  the  "  logical  candidate  "  in 
1860,  102;  opposition  to  nomination  of, 
102, 103  ;  too  radical  for  some  states,  103; 
T.  and  Lincoln  on  candidacy  of,  103, 104, 
105;  his  inclusion  in  Cabinet  opposed, 
139  ff.  ;  State  Dep't.  offered  to,  141 ;  and 
Cameron's  appointment,  143 ;  and  the 
Harvey  despatch  to  Gov.  Pickens,155^.; 
and  Harvey's  appointment  to  Portugal, 
155,  157;  his  assurance  to  Confederate 
envoys  as  to  evacuation  of  Sumter,  156; 
his  purpose,  to  defeat  relief  of  Sumter, 
157;  had  induced  Lincoln  to  agree  to 
evacuation  to  prevent  secession  of  Va., 
158 ;  sends  Magruder  to  Va.  convention, 
161 ;  and  Douglas,  in  April,  1861, 163, 164  ; 
his  aims  patriotic  but  futile,  164;  as 
sumes  power  to  order  arbitrary  arrests, 
190  J". ;  his  dispatches  of  Apr.  1861,  and 
July,  1862,  to  Adams,  210  jff. ;  his  attitude 
toward  Lincoln's  war  policy,  210;  un 
justly  blamed  for  non-success  of  Union 
arms,  210, 211, 212;  committee  of  Repub 
lican  Senators  urge  Lincoln  to  demand 
his  resignation,  211 ;  Lincoln's  comment 
thereon,  212;  on  real  date  of  emancipa 
tion,  222;  his  construction  of  13th 
Amendment  confirmed  by  Supreme 
Court,  229;  on  Johnson  as  a  speaker,  246 ; 
opinion  of,  on  matter  of  territorializing 
States,  290;  prepares  Johnson's  veto 
message  of  Tenure-of-Office  bill,  303;  48, 
79,  82,  84,  86,  88,  106,  107, 108,  112,  116,  118, 
119,  145, 146,  147,  150,  151,  170,  172,  181  n., 
182,  197,  238,  307,  430. 

Seymour,  Horatio,  elected  Governor  of 
N.  Y.,  197;  Democratic  nominee  for 
Pres.  (1868),  333;  355. 

Shaffer,  J.  W.,  quoted,  on  conditions  in 
seceding  states,  242, 243. 

Shannon,  Wilson,  succeeds  Reeder  as 
Governor  of  Kansas  Terr.,  55. 

Sheahan,  James  W.,  79. 


452 


INDEX 


Sheridan 


Sheridan,  P.  H.,  General,  221. 

Sherman,  John,  Senator,  on  Tenure-of- 
Office  bill,  301,  302,  303;  his  view  of  im 
peachment,  309,  310;  and  evidence  of 
Johnson's  intent,  313 ;  on  Sumner  and 
the  Foreign  Affairs  Committee,  344,  345; 
on  Caucus  secrets,  345,  346;  102,248,249, 
292,316,320,  363,371,409. 

Sherman,  William  T.,  General,  quoted,  on 
conditions  in  La.  (1859),  xxxv,  165,  166, 
221,  257,  308. 

Shields,  James,  Senator,  39,  43. 

Shiloh,  battle  of,  334. 

Simpson,  Matthew,  Methodist  bishop.and 
the  impeachment  trial,  317,  320. 

Slave  trade,  extension  of,  deemed  a  vital 
necessity  in  the  South,  xxxiv. 

Slavery,  how  involved  in  the  War,  xxi, 
xxii;  history  of,  in  the  U.  S.,  xxvii  ff. ; 
change  in  Southern  view  of,  xxxii, 
xxxiii;  in  111.,  early  history  of ,  23  ff. ; 
provisions  of  Ordinance  of  1787  concern 
ing,  violated  by  legislature,  25 ;  prohib 
ited  by  State  Constitution,  25;  attempts 
to  perpetuate  in  111.,  28-30;  and  the  Kan 
sas-Nebraska  bill,  34^.;  in  Lecompton 
Constitution,  72,  76;  Douglas's  attitude 
toward,  78,  86 ;  in  territories,  doctrine 
of  Squatter  Sovereignty,  94  and  n.,  95; 
resolutions  concerning,  proposed  by 
Lincoln,  112;  proposed  Amendment  to 
Constitution  forbidding  interference 
with,  passes  both  Houses,  117;  T.'s  re 
view  of  question  of,  124^. ;  T.'s  view  of 
effect  of  13th  Amendment  on,  249,  250, 
251,  258,  259,  260.  And  see  Constitution 
(Amendment  XIII),  and  Squatter  Sov 
ereignty. 

Slaves,  premature  attempts  to  emanci 
pate,  by  Fremont,  169,  170,  Cameron, 
172,  Hunter.  172;  T.'s  confiscation  bill, 
173 ff..  the  first  step  toward  full  eman 
cipation,  176. 

Slidell,  John,  80,  349,  and  n. 

Smith,  Caleb,  Secretary  of  the  Interior, 
142,  148,  149,  151,  429. 

South,  the,  and  the  right  of  Secession, 
xxx ;  and  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
xxx  ;  condition  of,  in  second  quarter  of 
19th  century,  xxxii,  xxxiii ;  changing 
view  of  slavery  in,  xxxii,  and  of  the 
slave  trade,  xxxiv. 

South  Carolina,  and  Nullification,  xxv, 
xxvi ;  attitude  of,  in  1861,  110;  forts  in, 
Lincoln's  attitude  concerning,  112,  113; 
and  the  13th  Amendment,  229;  disputed 
returns  from  (1876),  408. 

Southern  States.    See  States  seceding. 

Spaulding,  RufusP.,  Congressman,  moves 
for  inquiry  into  suspension  of  Stanton, 
306;  304. 


Spencer,  Charles  S.,  threatens  T.  for  his 
attitude  on  impeachment,  315. 

Spoils  system,  T.  on  iniquities  of,  349. 

Springfield  (111.)  Journal,  142. 

Springfield  (Mass.)  Republican,  372. 

Squatter  Sovereign,  the,  quoted,  51. 

Squatter  Sovereignty,  doctrine  of,  reaf 
firmed  by  Douglas,  94;  denied  by  Jeffer 
son  Davis,  94. 

Stallo,  J.  G.,  373. 

Stanbery,  Henry,  Attorney-General, 
opinion  of,  on  question  of  territorializ 
ing  states,  290,  291 ;  of  counsel  for  John 
son,  309;  327. 

Stanton,  Edwin  M.,  Secretary  of  War,  and 
arbitrary  arrests,  197;  general  jail  de 
livery  by,  198;  opinion  of,  on  question  of 
territorializing  states,  290,  291;  and  the 
Cabinet  section  of  Tenure-of-Office  bill, 
302;  advises  veto,  and  assists  Seward  in 
preparing  veto  message,  303 ;  declines  to 
resign  as  Secretary  of  War,  305;  sus 
pended,  305;  denies  power  of  Pres.  to 
suspend  him,  305;  surrenders  office  to 
Grant, 305 ;  resumes  office,  after^Senate's 
action,  306;  his  embarrassing  position, 
308 ;  Johnson  attempts  to  remove,  308 ; 
refuses  to  turn  over  office  to  Thomas, 
308 ;  change  in  popular  feeling  concern 
ing,  308,  309;  attempted  removal  of, 
basis  of  first  8  articles  of  impeachment, 
309,  310;  claims  to  be  protected  by  Ten 
ure-of-Office  Act,  310 ;  evidence  of  his  ad 
vice  to  Johnson  as  to  that  act,  excluded, 
313;  articles  based  on  removal  of,  not 
voted  on,  320;  relinquishes  office,  321; 
his  conduct  condemned,  321  ;177, 186, 189, 
237,  318,  319,  330,  430. 

Stanton,  F.  P.,  acting  Governor  of  Kansas, 
removed  by  Buchanan,  73. 

State  Register,  the,  13,  14. 

State  sovereignty,  xxii,  xxv. 

States,  admitted  in  pairs,  xxix. 

States,  seceding,  opposing  views  as  to 
status  of,  231,  232;  Sumner  and  Stevens 
against  Lincoln,  231, 232;  reconstruction 
of,  mapped  out  before  39th  Congress 
met,  237, 238;  witches'  caldron  in,  under 
reconstruction,  241;  labor  problem  in, 
241, 242 ;  new  labor  laws  of,  242.  and  their 
effect  in  the  North,  242;  Shaffer  quoted 
on  conditions  in,  242,  243;  reports  of 
Grant  and  Schurz  on  conditions  in, 
252-254 ;  Committee  on  Reconstruction  on 
status  of,  284;  Stevens  reports  bill  to  re 
store  political  rights  of,  284,  285;  except 
Tenn.,  refuse  to  ratify  14th  Amendment, 
287;  cause  and  consequence  of  their  re 
fusal,  287;  Stevens's  bill  to  make  mili 
tary  authority  supreme  in,  291,  292;  con 
stitutions  adopted  by,  in  18G8,  295,  296. 


Texas 


INDEX 


453 


Stephens,  Alex.  H.,  on  Johnson's  speech 
against  secession,  246. 

Stetson,  Francis  L.,  letter  of,  to  author, 
40  n. 

Stevens,  Simon,  184. 

Stevens,  Thaddeus,  his  bill  of  indemnity 
for  arbitrary  arrests,  198;  his  views 
of  status  of  seceding  states,  231 ;  on  Re 
construction  Committee,  271 ;  proposes 
amendments  to  Constitution,  282;  re 
ports  bill  to  restore  political  rights  of 
states,  284;  his  bill  making  military 
authority  supreme  in  the  South, 291,  292; 
author  of  llth  article  of  impeachment, 
311 ;  184,  260,  278,  287,  304,  306,  308,  309. 

Stewart,  Alex.  T.,  nominated  by  Grant  as 
Secretary  of  Treasury,  335,  and  why, 
335, 336;  ineligible,  336;  on  the  "  general 
order  "  system,  365. 

Stewart,  William  M.,  Senator,  261,  262, 
264,  265,  298,  339,  366. 

Stockton,  John  P.,  elected  Senator  from 
N.  J.,  261,  262  ;  his  election  contested, 
262-265;  unseated  for  partisan  reasons, 
265. 

Storey,  Wilbur  F.,  and  the  Chicago  Times, 
206-208. 

Stoughton,  E.  W.,  411. 

Stringfellow,  J.  H.,  quoted,  54. 

Strong,  Moses  M.,  208. 

Stuart,  John  T.,  32. 

Sturtevant,  J.  M.,  quoted,  118. 

Suffrage,  in  seceding  states,  restriction 
of,  294. 

Summers,  George  W.,  158,  159,  161,  162. 

Sumner,  Charles,  his  speech  on  Kansas 
affairs,  64;  Brooks 's  assault  on,  65; 
quoted,  inT.'s  debate  with  Douglas,  66; 
and  Cameron,  188, 189 ;  his  view  of  status 
of  seceding  states,  231 ;  opposes  recog 
nition  of  new  state  government  of  La., 
233,  and  defeats  it,  234;  attacks  Johnson, 
246,  247  ;  and  the  14th  Amendment,  283 ; 
secures  adoption  of  negro  suffrage  as 
permanent  element  of  reconstruction, 
292  and  n. ;  Northern  views  concerning, 
293;  dispute  with  T.  on  Va.  bill,  297;  T. 
opposes  ousting  of,  from  Foreign  affairs 
Committee,  297,  344,  420;  his  theory  of 
impeachment,  312;  and  Stanton,  321; 
and  the  San  Domingo  treaty,  342; 
charged  with  bad  faith  by  Grant,  342, 
343;  deposed  as  Chairman  of  Foreign 
affairs  committee,  343-347 ;  Sherman's 
advice  to,  345  ;  interview  of  author  with, 
347;  on  attitude  of  Anthony,  347;  Mot 
ley's  removal  a  blow  at,  347;  moves  his 
Equal  Rights  bill  as  amendment  to  Am 
nesty  bill,  360;  and  Grant's  adminis 
tration,  361 ;  his  speech  against  Grant, 
387,  388;  his  attitude  toward  Greeley's 


nomination,  388 ;  chastised  by  Garrison, 
388;  79,  102,  211,  228  n.,  236,  260,  264,  278, 
285, 287,  291,  298,  313,  363,  366,  367, 370, 371, 
378,  385  n.,  423,  424. 

Sumter,  Fort,  J.  Davis's  views  concern 
ing,  110;  Buchanan's  reported  purpose 
to  surrender,  112,  113 ;  effect  on  Douglas 
of  attack  on,  115;  Harvey  divulges  plans 
to  send  supplies  to,  155 ff.;  Seward  de 
termined  to  prevent  relief  of,  156,  157 ; 
Lincoln's  earlier  promise  to  evacuate, 
158  ff. ;  attack  on,  aroused  forces  that 
finally  destroyed  slavery,  164;  attack 
on,  and  emancipation,  222 ;  128, 129. 

Sunderland,  Rev.  Byron,  121. 

Supreme  Court  of  U.  S.,  and  the  second 
clause  of  13th  Amendment,  229  ;  con 
strues  13th,  14th  and  15th  Amendments, 
in  U.  S.  v.  Harris,  275, 276,  358  ;  holds  Kti- 
Klux  Act  unconstitutional,  275;  holds 
Equal  Rights  Act  (1875)  unconstitu 
tional,  275, 276 ;  and  the  Civil  Rights  Act, 
277;  divided  decision  of,  in  Milligan 
Case,  288,  289;  proposed  legislation  con 
cerning,  328  ;  its  jurisdiction  as  affected 
by  Act  of  Mch.  27, 1868,329,330;  dismisses 
McCardle's  appeal,  330;  and  the  Debs 
case,  414. 

Surratt,  Mary  E.,  289. 

Swayne,  Noah  H.,  Justice  Sup.  Ct.,  274, 
289,  409. 

Swett,  Leonard,  quoted,  428,  429 ;  69,  144. 

Talcott,  Wait,  quoted,  118. 

Tallmadge,  James,  Congressman,  and  the 
admission  of  Missouri,  xxix,  xxx. 

Tallmadge,  N.  P.,  48. 

Taney,  Roger  A.,  Chief  Justice  Sup.  Ct., 
on  the  power  to  suspend  habeas  corpus, 
195,  196. 

Tarr,  Campbell,  161. 

Taylor,  John,  of  Caroline,  xxii,  n. 

Ten  Eyck,  John  C.,  Senator,  262. 

Tennessee,  loyal  state  government  in, 
recognized  by  Johnson,  237;  bill  for 
readmission  of,  285. 

Tenure-of- Office  bill,  purpose  of,  301 ;  not 
at  first  intended  to  apply  to  cabinet 
officers,  301;  passes  Congress,  301;  cab 
inet  advises  veto  of,  301;  vetoed,  and 
passed  over  veto,  303;  and  the  Stanton 
case,  306,  309;  unconstitutionality  of, 
alleged  by  Johnson's  counsel,  311,  313. 

Territorializing  states,  opinions  of  John 
son's  advisers  on  question  of,  290,  291. 

Terry,  Alfred  H.,  General,  and  the  legisla 
ture  of  Va.,  247. 

Texas,  opposition  in  Mass.&  admission  of, 
xxvi;  order  for  reconstruction  of,  238; 
fails  to  adopt  new  constitution  prompt 
ly,  295;  new  conditions  imposed  on,  296. 


454 


INDEX 


Thayer 


Thaycr,  Eli,  50. 

Thomas,  Jesse  B.,  Senator,  Author  of  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  xxx. 
Thomas,  Lorenzo,  appointed  Secretary  of 
Wararf  interim,  308;  Stanton  refuses  to 
give  way  to,  308;  his  appointment  the 
basis  of  certain  articles  of  impeachment, 
309,  310,  320,  321;  318,  319. 
Thomas,  Morris  St.  P.,  quoted,  21  n.,  421. 
Thomas,  William  B.,  374. 
Thompson,  Jacob,  Secretary  of  Interior, 

and  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  73. 
Thompson,  John  B.,  quoted,  36. 
Thurman,  Allen  G.,  Senator,  367. 
Tilden,  Samuel  J.,  and  the  Election  of 
1876,  406,  407  .#'. ;  T.  of  counsel  for,  in  La. 
case,  409,  410 ;  Electoral  Commission  de 
cides  adversely  to,  411;  legally  elected, 
411. 

Tillson,  John,  quoted,  107. 
Tipton,  Thomas  AV.,  Senator,  300,  343,  344, 

345,  346,  363,  371. 
Tompkins,  D.  D.,  179. 
Toombs,  Robert,  Senator,  58,  83,  121, 
Topeka  Constitution,  condemned  by  Bu 
chanan  and  upheld  by  T.,  76,  77. 
Toucey,  Isaac,  130. 
Traveling  in  U.  S.,  in  1847,  20. 
Treat,  Samuel  H.,  Justice,  13,  20. 
Truman,  Benj.  C.,  quoted,  245  n. ;  307  n. 
Trumbull,  Julia  (Jayne),  T.'s  first  wife, 
letters  of,  to  Walter  T.,  121-123;  T.'s  let 
ters  to,  on  Harvey  dispatch,  155, 157, 158, 
and  on  first  battle  of  Bull  Run,  165-167; 
her  personality,  169 ;   her  death,  326. 
TRUMBULL,  LYMAN,  birth  (1813)  and  an 
cestry,  1-3;  education,  3;  school-teach 
ing  in  Georgia,  4,  5;  reads  law  there,  5; 
goes  to  Illinois  (1837),  and  settles  at 
Belleville,  5,  6;  practices  law,  1  ff. ;  de 
scribes   murder  of  Lovejoy,  8-10;  his 
early  attitude  toward    slavery,  10;  in 
State  legislature,  10;  his  qualities  as  a 
debater,    10;    appointed   Secretary  of 
State,  11 ;  his  resignation  requested  by 
Gov.  Carlin,    and  why?  12  and  n.,  13; 
his  resignation  splits  the  Democratic 
party,    13,    14;    resumes  practice,  14; 
marries  Julia  M.  Jayne,  15;  describes 
river  floods,    and    murder  of  Joseph 
Smith,  16;  family  affairs,  16,17,19,20; 
candidate  for  Democratic  nomination 
for  governor,  18;  defeated  by  Ford's 
influence,  18  ;  nominated  for  Congress, 
and  defeated  (1846),  18,  19;  his  profes 
sional  earnings,  20;   elected  Judge  of 
111.  Supreme  Court  (1848),  20;  removed 
to  Alton,  21 ;  reflected  judge  (1852),  but 
resigns   (1853),  21;  Chief   Justice  Ma- 
gruder  on  his  judicial  opinions,  21, 22. 
Engaged    as    counsel    for    negroes 


claiming  their  freedom,  28;  case  of 
Sarah  Borders,  28,  29;  in  Jarrot  v.  Jar- 
rot,  wins  a  victory  which  practically 
puts  an  end  to  slavery  in  111.,  29;  N.  D. 
Harris  quoted  on  his  efforts,  30,  31;  his 
return  to  politics  due  to  repeal  of  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  32  ;  takes  stump  in 
opposition  to  Kansas-Nebraska  bill,  37, 
38;  Anti-Nebraska  candidate  for  Con 
gress  in  8th  district,  38,  and  elected,  38; 
in  Senatorial  election  of  1854,  receives 
votes  of  Anti-Nebraska  Democrats  on 
early  ballots,  43,  44 ;  elected  by  votes  of 
Lincoln  men,  to  defeat  Gov.  Matteson, 
44,  45,  46  n. ;  regarded  as  a  traitor  by 
regular  Democrats,  45;  Lincoln's  atti 
tude  toward  his  election,  45,  46. 

Takes  his  seat  in  Senate,  48 ;  protest 
against  his  election  overruled,  48,  49; 
letter  from  J.  C.  Underwood  to,  on 
Kansas  affairs,  52,  53;  and  from  I.  T. 
Dement,  53;  his  speech  on  report  of 
Committee  on  Territories  endorsing 
Pres.  Pierce's  view  of  Kansas  affairs, 
56  Jf.;  exposes  Douglas's  sophisms,  57, 
58 ;  a  welcome  reinforcement  to  Re 
publicans  in  Senate,  57;  Douglas  de 
clares  him  not  a  Democrat,  59  ;  his 
answer  to  Douglas's  tirade  against 
him,  60,  61;  Douglas's  reply,  61,  62;  his 
construction  of  "forever  "  in  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  62,  63;  further  de 
bate  with  Douglas  on  Kansas,  63,  64; 
effect  of  these  debates  on  his  reputa 
tion,  65;  his  intellect  and  personality 
compared  with  Lincoln's,  65;  divers 
views  of  his  first  appearance  in  debate, 
quoted,  66,  67 ;  letter  from  G.  B.  Raum 
to,  67;  campaigns  in  Minnesota,  68;  at 
tends  Republican  National  Convention 
of  1856,  69;  colloquy  with  Mason,  on 
destruction  of  the  Union,  70 ;  letter  of, 
to  J.  B.  Turner,  on  conditions  in  1857, 
71 ;  divers  reports  to,  on  effect  of  Doug 
las's  Anti-Lecompton  stand,  74,  75  ; 
demolishes  Buchanan's  message  on 
Kansas  affairs,  76,  77;  letters  to,  on 
possible  alliance  of  Douglas  with  Re 
publicans,  79,  80;  Democratic  overtures 
to,  80,  81 ;  speaks  on  Buchanan's  claim 
that  slavery  lawfully  exists  in  Kansas, 
81, 82;  letters  to,  from  Lincoln  andothers, 
voicing  Republican  distrust  of  Douglas 
in  111.,  87,  88,  and,  generally,  on  the 
campaign  of  1858,  90-92 ;  his  cordial 
relations  with-  Lincoln,  93  ;  takes  part 
in  dobate  on  resolution  for  committee 
of  inquiry  into  John  Brown's  raid,  98- 
100 ;  his  notable  speech,  98,  99,  and  Lin 
coln's  praise  thereof,  100;  letter  from 
Lincoln  on  Delahay  matter,  100,  101. 


Tmmbull 


INDEX 


455 


His  view  of  candidates  for  Republican 
nomination  in  1860,  103;  writes  to  Lin 
coln  thereon,  103,  104;  thinks  Seward 
cannot  be  elected,  104,  and  believes  Mc 
Lean  alone  can  beat  him,  104;  Lincoln 
his  first  choice,  104;  Lincoln,  in  reply, 
avows  his  own  ambition,  and  discusses 
other  candidates,  104,  105;  divers  let 
ters  to, on  Lincoln's  nomination,  106-107; 
post-nomination  letters  of  Lincoln  to, 
108 ;  speaks  for  Lincoln  at  ratification 
meeting,  109, 110;  confidential  letters  of 
Lincoln  to,  against  compromise,  111, 
112,  and  on  Buchanan's  reputed  purpose 
to  surrender  So.  Carolina  forts,  112;  his 
own  views  on  compromise  set  forth  in 
letter  to  E.  C.  Lamed,  113,  114;  his 
speech  on  Crittenden  Compromise 
(March  2,  1861),  115,  116,  and  n.,  123-138; 
urged  by  constituents  to  stand  firm,  117- 
119 ;  writes  Gov.  Yates,  advising  military 
preparations,  120;  declines  to  listen  to 
"Compromisers"  from  N.  Y.,  122;  his 
troubles  with  office-seekers,  139;  in  N. 
Y.  meets  remonstrants  against  Seward 's 
inclusion  in  Cabinet,  and  reports  to 
Lincoln,  139,  140;  Lincoln's  reply,  141; 
Greeley's  advice  to,  141;  advises  Lin 
coln  not  to  appoint  Camei'on,  145,  146, 
147;  is  urged  to  use  his  influence  to  that 
end,  147,  148;  favors  Judd  for  seat  in 
Cabinet,  148,  149,  150;  reflected  senator 
(Jan.  1861),  152;  announces  death  of 
Douglas,  152;  his  eulogy  of  Douglas, 
153,  154;  the  Harvey  dispatch  to  Gov. 
Pickens,  commented  on  in  letter  to  Mrs. 
T.,  155,  156. 

Witnesses  first  battle  of  Bull  Run,  and 
describes  it  in  letter  to  Mrs.  T.,  165-167; 
his  reconstructed  telegram,  168;  his  first 
Confiscation  Act  passed  by  Congress, 
168;  his  physical  aspect,  etc.,  in  1861, 
168  ;  his  family,  169 ;  letter  of  M.  C.  Lea 
to,  on  financial  affairs,  170,  and  his  reply, 
171;  brings  in  his  second  Confiscation 
Act,  173;  his  report  thereon,  173;  history 
of  the  bill  in  Congress,  173-176;  speaks 
on  War  Dep't.  frauds,  184;  leads  opposi 
tion  to  confirmation  of  Cameron's  nomi 
nation  as  minister  to  Russia,  187;  votes 
against  confirmation,  189;  introduces 
resolution  of  inquiry  concerning  arbi 
trary  arrests  in  loyal  states,  191,  192;  his 
colloquy  with  Dixon  of  Conn.,  192,  193; 
his  resolution  shelved,  194;  reports  from 
Judiciary  Committee  House  bill  on 
same  subject,  197;  offers  substitute  for 
that  bill,  which  is  opposed  by  Demo 
crats,  but  finally  passed,  198,  199 ;  offers 
substitute  for  Stevens's  bill  to  indem 
nify  Pres.  for  arbitrary  arrests,  199 ;  re 


ports  from  conference  his  substitute 
combined  with  his  habeas  corpus  bill, 
200 ;  his  report  concurred  in,  after  Dem 
ocratic  filibuster,  201,  202;  his  speech  at 
meeting  of  protest  against  the  order 
forbidding  the  publication  of  Chicago 
Times,  207,  208,  209;  letter  of  Judge 
White  to,  regarding  certain  dispatches 
of  Seward  to  Adams,  210,  211,  and  his 
reply,  211,  212;  one  of  committee  to  urge 
Lincoln  to  get  rid  of  Seward,  211 ;  divers 
letters  to,  relating  to  the  war,  212,  213, 
215,  216,  217;  and  Delahay's  appoint 
ment  to  a  judgeship,  213-214;  letters  of 
J.  M.  Palmer  to,  concerning  the  election 
of  1864,  214,  216;  first  evidence  of  per 
sonal  difference  between  Lincoln  and, 
217,  218;  deems  the  government  ineffi 
cient  inputting  down  the  rebellion, 218; 
falsely  accused  of  refusing  to  speak  in 
favor  of  Lincoln's  reelection,  220. 

Reports  to  the  Senate  as  a  substitute 
for  Henderson's  proposed  Constitu 
tional  Amendment  what  later  became 
the  13th  Amendment,  224;  his  speech 
thereon,  225-226 ;  his  authorship  thereof, 
his  title  to  immortality,  230;  and  the  new 
Senators  from  La.,  233;  reports  resolu 
tion  recognizing  Hahn  government  of 
La. ,  233 ;  breaks  temporarily  with  Sum- 
ner,  234;  letter  of  Shaffer  to,  on  condi 
tions  in  South,  242,  243,  and  of  Ray,  on 
Reconstruction,  243;  his  speech  on  post 
ponement  of  Wilson  bill  invalidating 
certain  acts,  etc.,  of  seceding  states,  248- 
251;  colloquy  with  Saulsbury,  250;  in 
troduces  Freedmen's  Bureau  and  Civil 
Rights  bills,  257;  speaks,  in  debate  on 
the  former,  on  construction  of  second 
clause  of  13th  Amendment,  258-260 ;  col 
loquy  with  Henderson,  260;  letter  from 
Ray,  on  negro  suffrage,  261;  favors 
Stockton  in  N.  J.  election  contest,  261  jf.; 
in  debating  his  Amendment  to  Civil 
Rights  bills,  speaks  again  on  power  of 
Congress  to  pass  laws  for  ordinary  ad 
ministration  of  justice  in  States,  265-267; 
answered  by  Saulsbury,  267-268 ;  quotes 
Gaston  as  to  citizenship  of  free  negroes, 
270;  his  great  speech  in  reply  to  John 
son's  message  vetoing  Civil  Rights  bill, 
272;  the  Nation,  quoted,  on  his  speech, 
273;  his  leading  position  in  the  campaign 
of  1866,  273;  opposed  to  Ku-Klux  bill  of 
1871,  275,  356,  357,  358;  reflected  Senator 
(1866),  277;  sustains  Johnson  until  veto 
of  Civil  Rights  bill,  277,  278;  letter  of 
Mrs.  F.  C.  Gary  to,  278,  and  his  reply,  279 ; 
not  active  in  drawing  14th  Amendment, 
284 n.;  his  influence  as  against  radical 
measures  lessened  by  refusal  of  South- 


456 


INDEX 


Trumbull 


ern  states  to  ratify  14th  Amendment, 
287;  on  Stevens's  Reconstruction  bill, 
votes  against  Sumner's  amendment 
making  negro  suffrage  a  permanent 
condition  of  reconstruction,  292,  but 
supports  bill  with  that  amendment, 
292 ;  at  fault  in  so  doing,  292 ;  votes  to 
pass  bill  over  veto,  294;  votes  to  pass 
supplementary  registration  of  voters 
bill  over  veto,  294;  writing  in  Chicago 
Advance,  denies  power  of  Congress  to 
regulate  suffrage  in  states,  294,  295; 
reports  bill  for  readmission  of  Va.,  but 
opposes  amendments  applying  new  con 
ditions,  296;  has  a  lively  dispute  with 
Surnner,  296,  297,  but  supports  him 
strongly  in  the  later  movement  to  oust 
him  from  chairmanship  of  Com.  on 
Foreign  Relations,  297,  344,  420;  sup 
ports  Bingham  proviso  to  the  Georgia 
bill,  298,  and  makes  a  powerful  speech 
thereon,  299;  the  Nation's  high  praise 
of  the  speech  and  its  author,  299,  300; 
votes;f  or  Tenure-of -Office  bill,  as  amend 
ed,  302;  abused  for  his  stand  against 
conviction  of  Johnson,  313,  315,  323; 
Spencer's  threat,  315;  N.  Y.  Evening 
Post,  Chicago  Tribune,  and  Nation, 
quoted,  as  to  abuse  of  the  "traitors," 
314-317 ;  his  written  opinion  on  the  case 
against  Johnson,  318,  319  ;  J.  F.  Rhodes 
quoted  on  the  action  of  the  seven,  322; 
his  only  reply  to  his  vilifiers,  323,  324; 
his  eulogy  of  Fessenden,  324,  325 ;  death 
of  Mrs.  Trumbull,  326. 

Retained  for  the  War  Dep't.  in  the 
matter  of  McCardle's  petition  for  ha 
beas  corpus,  327 ;  appears  before  Su 
preme  Court,  327, 328 ;  votes  to  pass  over 
veto  the  Act  of  March  27,  1868,  which 
the  Supreme  Court  held  to  apply  ex  post 
facto  to  McCardle  case,  329,  330;  his 
action  criticized,  330, 332;  his  acceptance 
of  counsel  fees  attacked  by  Chandler  as 
being  connected  with  his  vote  on  im 
peachment,  330,  331;  his  defense,  331, 
332 ;  the  Chandler  charge  would  not 
down,  332;  supports  Vickers's  amend 
ment  to  15th  Amendment,  338,  and  op 
poses  Wilson's  amendment,  339 ;  letter 
of  Grenier  to,on  Republican  corruption, 
341 ;  offered  English  mission,  347;  his  rea 
son  for  declining,  348;  in  speech  at  Chi 
cago,  discusses  claims  of  U.S.  against 
England,  349,  and  the  urgent  need  of  re 
form  of  the  Civil  service,  349,  350;  in 
dorses  Cox's  stand,  349,  350;  casts  only 
vote  in  Judiciary  Committee  in  favor  of 
Hoar's  confirmation  as  Supreme  Court 
Justice,  350;  votes  against  tacking  Sum- 
ner's  Equal  Rights  bill  to  Amnesty  bill, 


359 ;  offers  amendment  for  general  in 
vestigation  of  public  service  to  Conk- 
ling's  resolution  concerning  Hodge,362 ; 
his  remarks  thereon,  363;  not  appointed 
on  investigating  committee,  366,  367;not 
moved  by  personal  hostility  to  Grant, 
369;  interview  with,  in  Courier-Journal 
on  his  relations  with  Grant  (Dec.  1871). 
369  and  n.,  370 ;  letter  of  S.  Galloway  to, 
on  Grant,  371 ;  mentioned  by  Stanley 
Matthews  as  possible  candidate  of  Lib 
eral  Republicans,  372  ;  J.  H.  Bryant  and 
others  urge  him  to  become  a  candidate, 
375;  his  replies  somewhat  non-commit 
tal,  375;  defends  Mo.  Liberal  Republi 
can  platform  as  Republican  doctrine, 
376  ;  on  civil  service  reform,  376;  letter 
of  Palmer  to,  offering  his  support,  377; 
in  letter  to  author,  gives  qualified  assent 
to  use  of  his  name,  378,  379;  letter  of 
author  to,  on  his  candidacy,  379;  his 
strength  impaired  by  division  of  vote  of 
111.  at  Cincinnati,  380;  opinions  of  edi 
tors  as  to  candidates,  381 ;  vote  for,  in 
the  convention,  383,  384 ;  his  supporters 
decide  to  support  Greeley,  384;  letter 
of  W.  C.  Bryant  to,  urging  him  not  to 
support  Greeley,  386,  and  his  reply,  386, 
387;  how  Greeley's  nomination  was 
brought  about,  389,  390 ;  how  Trumbull 
received  the  news,  390, 391 ;  takes  active 
part  in  campaign,  394  ff.\  his  speech  at 
Springfield,  111.,  denouncing  Republi 
can  corruption,  395-399;  his  tribute  to 
Greeley,  399;  if  nominated,  could  have 
been  elected,  402 ;  Adams,  the  stronger 
candidate,  402,  403;  his  speech  on  La. 
election  of  1872,  his  last  speech  in  the 
Senate,  405, 406. 

His  official  career  ended  by  defeat 
of  Greeley,  407;  defeated  for  reelection 
by  Oglesby,  407 ;  resumes  practice  of  law, 
407;  one  of  the  "  visiting  statesmen  " 
sent  to  La.  to  watch  canvass  of  votes 
(1876),  409;  of  counsel  for  Tilden  before 
Electoral  Commission,  409-411;  marries 
Mary  Ingrahain,  412;  Democratic  candi 
date  for  governor  of  111.  (1880),  412;  de 
feated  by  Culloin,  412;  entertains  W.  J. 
Bryan  in  1893,  413  ;  inclined  to  free  sil 
ver,  413 ;  his  geniality,  and  vigor  of  mind 
and  body,  413;  appears  for  Debs  before 
Supreme  Court,  on  petition  for  habeas 
corpus,  414;  his  speech  in  Chicago  pub 
lished  as  Populist  campaign  document, 
414,  415;  no  more  radical  than  present- 
day  "Progressive  "  doctrines,  415;  draws 
declaration  of  principles  for  Populist 
national  conference,  415-417;  his  death 
(June  5,  1896),  418;  Judge  Moran  quoted 
on  his  career,  419;  eminent  as  a  political 


Wentworth 


INDEX 


457 


debater,  well  grounded  in  the  law,  419, 
420;  his  character  and  talents  reviewed 
and  discussed,  419-422 ;  "  a  high-minded, 
kind-hearted,  courteous  gentleman, 
without  ostentation,  and  without  guile," 
421 ;  his  place  among  the  statesmen  of 
his  time  discussed,  422  ;  his  connection 
with  the  13th  Amendment,  422  ;  his  op 
position  to  arbitrary  arrests  unpopular, 
422,423 ;  his  position  as  one  of  the"  Seven 
Traitors  "  a  proud  one,  423 ;  change  in 
his  course  on  Reconstruction,  423,  424; 
Medill  quoted  as  to  effect  of  vote  in  im 
peachment  trial  on  his  future,  424,  425 ; 
his  partners  quoted,  as  to  his  kindliness, 
424;  Darrow  on  the  "  socialistic  trend  " 
of  his  opinions,  425;  letter  of  his 
daughter-in-law  to  author,  426 ;  his  es 
timate  of  Lincoln's  character  and  ca 
reer,  426-430 ;  his  views  on  religion,  in 
letter  to  his  mother,  430, 431;  his  descend 
ants,  431,  432. 

Trumbull,  Mary  (Ingraham),  T.'s  second 
wife,  413,  432. 

Trumbull,  Walter,  T.'s  son,  18, 19,  121-123, 
169,  425,  426,  431. 

Trumbull  family,  the,  1,  2,  431,  432. 

Turner,  J.  B.,  71. 

Turner,  matter  of,  in  Circuit  Court  of 
U.S.,  274. 

Underwood,  John  C.,  quoted,  52,  53. 

Union  Pacific  R.  R.,  402. 

United  States  v.  Harris,  106  U.  S.,  275,  276, 

358. 
United  States  v.  Rhodes  (Circuit  Court), 

274. 

Vagrancy  law  of  Va.,  247. 

Vallandigham,  Clement  L.,  "  the  incarna 
tion  of  Copperheadism,"  203;  his  speech 
of  Jan.  14,  1863,  203,  204;  his  arrest  or 
dered  by  Burnside,  204 ;  tried  by  military 
commission,  204;  his  sentence  of  impris 
onment  commuted  to  banishment  to  the 
South,  204;  all  proceedings  against,  after 
arrest,  illegal  under  habeas  corpus  sus 
pension  act,  205;  nominated  for  gover 
nor  of  Ohio,  but  defeated,  206 ;  288. 

Van  Buren,  John,  379. 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  xxi,  32,  37. 

Van  Tyne,  C.  H.,  Letters  of  Daniel  Web 
ster,  xxiv  n. 

Van  Winkle,  Peter  G.,  Senator,  on  Civil 
Rights  bill,  269;  261,  302, 314. 

Van  Wyck,  Charles  H.,  Congressman, 
181,  182,  184. 

Vermont,  in  convention  of  1860, 106. 

Vickers,  (leorge,  Senator,  338. 

Villard,  Oswald  G.,  John  Brown,  52  n. 

Virginia,  efforts  to  prevent  secession  of, 


15$  ff. ;  Lincoln's  plan  of  reconstruction 
in,  adopted  by  Johnson's  Cabinet,  237 ; 
Peirpoint  recognized  as  Governor  of, 
237;  vagrancy  law  of,  247;  additional 
conditions  imposed  on  readmission  of, 
296,  297. 

Virginia  Resolutions  of  1798,  xxiii. 

"  Visiting  statesmen,"  and  the  contested 
election  of  1876,  408,  409. 

Wade,  Benjamin  F.,  Senator,  opposed  to 
Lincoln's  renomination,  220;  102,  107, 
108,  111,  150,  166,  233,  287,  332,  343. 

Waite,  Morrison  R.,  Chief  Justice  Sup. 
Ct.,  275. 

Walker,  Robert  J.,  appointed  governor  of 
Kansas,  71;  and  the  Lecompton  Con 
vention,  71,  72;  denounces  Cabinet  con 
spiracy,  73  ;  resigns,  73 ;  81,  82. 

Wall,  James  W.,  Senator,  200. 

Wallace,  Lew,  General,  attempts  to  usurp 
powers  of  Attorney-general  under  Con 
fiscation  Act,  176,  177. 

War  Department,  frauds  in,  178^. 

War  of  1812,  xxiv. 

Warren,  Hooper,  27,  28. 

Washburne,  Elihu  B.,  appointed  Secre 
tary  of  State,  333 ;  a  strong  partisan  of 
Grant,  333 ;  his  qualifications,  333 ;  terms 
of  his  appointment,  334 ;  resigns,  334 ; 
45,  46,  168,  281,  304,  407. 

Washington,  Bushrod,  xxxi. 

Washington,  George,  xxiii. 

Washington,  gathering  of  troops  at,  in 
Jan.,  1861,  121,  122. 

Washington  Chronicle,  300. 

Watterson,  Henry,  372,  373. 

Wayland,  Rev.  Francis,  xxxii. 

Ways  and  Means,  Committee  of,  354. 

Webster,  Daniel,  quoted,  xxiv  and  n.; 
xxii  n.,  xxv  n.,  xxvi,  xxvii,  27,  39,  125. 

Weed,  Thurlow,  and  Cameron's  appoint 
ment,  143 ;  and  the  War  Dep't.  frauds, 
179,  180;  108,  112,  139,  141,  146,151,181, 
182;  184. 

Weik,  Jesse  W.,  101  n.,  143 n. 

Welles,  Gideon,  quoted,  on  Cameron's 
appointment,  142,  144,  146,  151 ;  on  the 
Harvey  dispatch,  157,  158  ;  on  Douglas's 
attitude  in  April,  1861, 163, 164  ;  on  Cam 
eron's  emancipation  hobby,  172 n.;  on 
Cummings,  181  n. ;  on  inefficiency  of 
Union  armies,  212;  on  Halleck,  226;  on 
Cabinet  meeting  of  Jan.  8,  1867,  290  ff. ; 
opinion  of,  on  question  of  territorializ 
ing  states,  290;  on  Stan  ton  and  the  Ten- 
ure-of -Office  Act,  303;  on  Methodist 
pressure  on  Senator  Willey,  319,  320  ;  on 
divers  matters,  273  n.,  313,  314,  324,  423. 

Wells,  David  A.,  353,  377,  379. 

Wentworth,  John,  90,  93. 


458 


INDEX 


Whigs 


Whigs,  the,  and  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill, 
41. 

White,  Andrew  D.,  343. 

White,  Horace,  and  Lincoln's  Peoria 
speech,  3'J;  his  recollections  of  the  Lin 
coln-Douglas  campaign,  89,  quoted,  92 ; 
impressions  of  John  Brown,  97;  on 
Douglas's  speech  to  111.  legislature,  153; 
his  friendly  relations  with  T.,  1C8,  169, 
413;  and  the  ousting  of  Sumner,  346, 347; 
interview  with  Elaine,  354;  on  the  out 
look  at  Cincinnati  (1872),  378;  letter  from 
T.  to,  and  his  reply,  379;  chairman  of 
platform  committee  at  Cincinnati,  382 ; 
his  view  of  the  result,  385,  and  of 
Greeley's  nomination,  389,  390;  thinks 
Adams  or  T.  could  have  been  elected, 
402,  403;  last  meeting  with  T.,  413. 

Whitfield,  pro-slavery  Delegate  in  Con 
gress  from  Kansas,  49,  50. 

Whitney,  Henry  C.,  quoted,  143  n. 

Wigfall,  Louis  T.,  Senate,  colloquy  with 
T.  in  debate  on  Crittenden  Compromise, 
129,  130  ;  133,  134. 

Wilkinson,  Morton  S.,  Senator,  150,  189. 

Willey,  Waitman  T.,  Senator,  Methodist 
pressure  on,  in  impeachment  trial,  317, 
320;  votes  "  guilty,"  320  ;  had  agreed  to 
vote  "  not  guilty  "  if  necessary,  321 ;  261, 
302,  314. 

Williams,  Archibald,  45. 


Williams, George  H.,  Senator,  281, 298,289, 
328,  329. 

Wilmot,  David,  Congressman,  146,  150. 

Wilson,  Henry,  his  speech  on  Kansas 
affairs,  65  ;  quoted  on  possible  alliance 
of  Douglas  with  Republicans,  79;  his 
resolution  on  suspension  of  habeas  cor 
pus,  190,  191 ;  opposes  bill  authorizing 
Pres.  to  suspend  habeas  corpus,  197;  his 
denunciation  of  Lincoln,  219 ;  brings  in 
bill  to  nullify  new  labor  laws  in  seced 
ing  states,  247,  248  ;  T.'s  speech  thereon, 
248-251  ;  nominated  for  Vice-Pres.,  393, 
and  elected,  402;  86,  87,  189,  194,  197,  198, 
296,  298,  314,  315,  338,  344,  363. 

Wilson,  James  F.,  Congressman,  proposes 
amendment  to  Constitution,  prohibit 
ing  slavery,  223;  "slated"  for  State 
Dep't.  under  Grant,  334  and  n.,  declines, 
334 ;  his  character,  335 ;  304,  309. 

Wilson,  James  H.,  General,  337. 

Wirt,  William,  331. 

Wood,  John,  92. 

Wool,  John  E.,  General,  178, 181. 

World's  Columbian  Exposition,  412. 

Wright,  Silas,  91. 

Wright,  William,  Senator,  261,  263,  264. 

Yates,  Richard,  Governor,  letter  from, 
to  T.,  218  ;  letter  from  T.  to,  120, 121;  107, 
109,  111,  150,  197,  220. 

Yulee,  David  L.,  Senator,  99. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
Bldg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4 
days  prior  to  due  date. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


MAY  2  8 1998 


FEB  0  3  2007 


12,000(11/95) 

UNIV.  OF  CALIF.,  BERK. 


LD21A-40m-3,'72 
(Qll73SlO)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


